[비즈한국] 'Live-in Matchmaking' is heading toward its final selection. In the 5th episode on January 29th, viewers saw a mix of confused hearts ahead of the final choice, and the agony caused by realistic obstacles even after decisions were made. However, watching this show, which only has its finale left, the biggest question isn't who ends up with whom. It's the 'reason' why the identity of a program where parents and children participate in a matchmaking retreat actually resonates in this day and age. Isn't this an era where dating, marriage, and childbirth are perceived as burdens rather than personal choices?
The SBS variety show 'Child Liberation Project - Live-in Matchmaking' presented a regressive concept that seems to completely defy current trends: single men and women hoping to marry and their mothers living together for 5 nights and 6 days to find a partner. Yet, it proudly made a name for itself as a 'unique dating reality show' by recording the highest viewership ratings in its time slot among the 2049 demographic. While another SBS variety show, 'My Little Old Boy,' also features mothers and children, the mothers are merely in a speaker position, 'observing' the daily lives of their grown-up sons. 'Live-in Matchmaking' differs in that mothers take proactive actions toward the concrete goal of marriage.
'Live-in Matchmaking' shows grown children appearing hand-in-hand with their mothers from the start. Mothers' influence is felt in choices at every turn, dates are decided entirely by the mothers, and they even bluntly probe into the details of potential spouses. Wait, we get so furious about personal data leaks every time they occur nationwide, yet we're okay with revealing annual salaries and family debts to a stranger's parents just because they might become in-laws? If this isn't real horror, what is? And yet, the reason viewers feel uncomfortable yet drawn to it seems to be the strange sense of reality that this horror isn't distorted or exaggerated. We see declarations that 'love has no age or borders' in countless dramas, but at the same time, we frequently encounter the reality that 'marriage is a union between families.'
Come to think of it, the 'matchmaking' method is also an old yet deeply historic way of marriage. It has long been favored because it has a high success rate by pre-screening men and women with similar economic, educational, professional, and physical backgrounds. Even in these days when free dating is the mainstream, it has continued to evolve under various names. Wedding information companies are a prime example, and more blunt and exclusive versions include meetings between residents of luxury apartments like the 'One Bailey Group Blind Date' reported in the news. 'Live-in Matchmaking' is simply the version expressed through broadcast.
Thus, 'Live-in Matchmaking' stimulates the 'old-school sentiment' that remains sticky in many people's minds despite being anachronistic, drawing them in. You can see the peak of this sentiment right after the specs of the men and women are revealed, when observing the choices made by the contestants' mothers. A male contestant with a good educational background and a lawyer profession was chosen by the most mothers, and the youngest female contestant—whose own background and her sisters' majors in arts and physical education implied a wealthy family—was chosen by the mothers of the men. The real horror is that the blatant choices of these mothers are impossible to simply brush off.
In the 4th episode, there is a statement that even shocks the MCs. It's the episode involving a female contestant who, despite having an outstanding appearance and career, is put on the defensive in front of a lawyer seven years her junior because she is the oldest and an 'unstable freelancer.' To a woman who urgently needs marriage to have children but isn't quite prepared, the male contestant suggests that 'in terms of value creation, support at home might be better.' It was a remark that could be seen as completely disregarding the career of a woman who has built over a decade of experience, yet the female contestant herself said it increased her favorability toward him because it showed he was trying to find a solution, which shocked both the MCs and viewers. Well, an acquaintance I watched with gave a cynical comment, saying they knew it would happen: 'As she gets older, she must be desperate for a 'marriage-job' (marrying for financial stability).' Just like this, 'Live-in Matchmaking' is making the old-school sentiment within us public.
Of course, 'Live-in Matchmaking' hasn't had a smooth sail. Shortly after the broadcast, one female contestant was caught up in an 'affair partner' controversy and was completely edited out from the middle of the season, showcasing the typical risk of non-celebrity contestants. It is shocking that even after formalizing various risk clauses in pre-show surveys, in-depth face-to-face interviews, and consent forms—and setting penalty liabilities for violations—this risk could not be averted, especially given the premise of appearing with her own mother under her own name. Nevertheless, it seems another season will be produced; what a strange world this is. It is appalling that such a program is popular, but I am equally appalled that I am the one glued to the TV screen, so let's just stop thinking about it.