According to Married at First Sight's Sarah, the last dinner party wasn't what it seemed.

Even though we deeply sympathised with Ryan and Tracey (but especially Ryan) at last week’s Married at First Sight dinner party, it really was everything we wanted in a reality television controversy.

But something… didn’t quite sit right. Dean and Davina entered into the exact same situation with the same dodgy intentions, supposedly agreeing to betray their “spouses” for one another.

Subsequently, Dean’s part in the decision was blatantly disapproved of by the other contestants, but somehow, Davina was treated like an angel.

Or so we were made to believe.

Girls Day Out! ???????????????????????? . @marriedau @channel9 @thisischarlenep @veuveclicquotau @melbourneracingclub #mafs #marriedatfirstsight #girlsdayout #horseracing #bluediamondstakesday #ladbrokes #veuveclicquot

A post shared by ???? S A R A H R O Z A ???? (@sarahjaneroza) on Feb 23, 2018 at 7:24pm PST

But on contestant Sarah Roza’s Instagram account, one Married at First Sight viewer questioned Davina’s lack of reproach. And the reality contestant’s response confirmed what we all suspected.

“Why didn’t anyone give Davina the same treatment? I would have like (sic) to see one of the ladies or even the boys call her out on her behaviour,” an Instagram user wrote.

“I feel like, on the show, she got away with no accountability,” she continued.

Listen to: Is Married At First Sight problematic? (Post continues after audio.)

But Roza responded, “We all gave it to Davina too.. but for some reason it wasn’t shown #editing”.

It begs the question – why weren’t those scenes shown?

Did the perception that Davina wasn’t being held accountable then add to the intensity of her conversation with Tracey?

Did they purposely make it seem as though no one was challenging Davina simply to enrage viewers?

It’s a very bizarre scenario indeed. And a reminder that things often appear very different on screen to how they panned out in real life.

Listen to the full podcast here: