POPULARITY
Categories
1,057 episodes with dominant
124 episodes with dominant
59 episodes with dominant
28 episodes with dominant
34 episodes with dominant
44 episodes with dominant
41 episodes with dominant
42 episodes with dominant
56 episodes with dominant
38 episodes with dominant
53 episodes with dominant
22 episodes with dominant
57 episodes with dominant
27 episodes with dominant
20 episodes with dominant
14 episodes with dominant
25 episodes with dominant
20 episodes with dominant
12 episodes with dominant
15 episodes with dominant
12 episodes with dominant
9 episodes with dominant
11 episodes with dominant
20 episodes with dominant
12 episodes with dominant
12 episodes with dominant
14 episodes with dominant
16 episodes with dominant
16 episodes with dominant
26 episodes with dominant
13 episodes with dominant
17 episodes with dominant
15 episodes with dominant
10 episodes with dominant
10 episodes with dominant
11 episodes with dominant
20 episodes with dominant
10 episodes with dominant
9 episodes with dominant
9 episodes with dominant
9 episodes with dominant
10 episodes with dominant
8 episodes with dominant
16 episodes with dominant
6 episodes with dominant
8 episodes with dominant
7 episodes with dominant
8 episodes with dominant
14 episodes with dominant
8 episodes with dominant
10 episodes with dominant
10 episodes with dominant
9 episodes with dominant
7 episodes with dominant
Dr. Jenny and Daniel have a conversation with their guest Andy, who asks how to transition from being a silent sexual partner to creating a strong masculine presence in the bedroom. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Use our code for 10% off your next SeatGeek order*: https://seatgeek.onelink.me/RrnK/JMPL... Sponsored by SeatGeek. *Restrictions apply. Max $20 discountPlayoff moments go better with Corona. La Playa Awaits. Be sure to get yours at order https://corona.com!Check out the Best Network in the Game at https://T-Mobile.com/NetworkShop your favorite gear from the Jomboy Media store. Click here to shop today! https://shop.jomboymedia.com/ Coach Trev and Talkin' Jake recap the first Divisional Series games and what to look for in game 2! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
L.A. Rams radio play-by-play voice and Big 12 football broadcaster J.B. Long joins Papa & Silver to preview Thursday Night Football between the 49ers and Rams, share the value of Tyler Davis and Quentin Lake on the Rams' defense, and explain why Puka Nacua has been so dominant in the first month of the seasonSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Was this a replay of last night's Dodgers/Reds game? Dominant starting pitching, this time from Yoshinobu Yamamoto. Ulcer-inducing relief pitching, this time mostly at the hands of Emmet Sheehan. And an offensive explosion, this time fueled by Mookie Betts and his four hits. Oh, and a reliever who has struggled at times this year looked great closing out the game, this time Roki Sasaki. And just like last night, Los Angeles doubled the Reds' score, winning 8-4 to sweep the Wild Card Series and set up a date in Philadelphia with the A.L. East champion Phillies. Join Clint Pasillas, Jeff Snider, and Kevin Skinner to talk about the good, the bad, and the other good again! Tube in all season long! Leave a voicemail or text the Friend of the Show hotline!
L.A. Rams radio play-by-play voice and Big 12 football broadcaster J.B. Long joins Papa & Silver to preview Thursday Night Football between the 49ers and Rams, share the value of Tyler Davis and Quentin Lake on the Rams' defense, and explain why Puka Nacua has been so dominant in the first month of the seasonSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
(0:00) Felger, Mazz, and Murray open the show with their thoughts on the Red Sox game 1 win over the Yankees in the American League Wild Card round. (17:55) Thoughts on Garrett Crochet's huge performance in the Red Sox win last night. Plus, caller reaction (23:52) The guys discuss the decisions made by Alex Cora and Aaron Boone with their starting pitchers last night.(34:41) More calls on the Red Sox win over the Yankees. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Red Sox manager Alex Cora joined WEEI Afternoons to react to his team's Game 1 victory in The Bronx, break down Garrett Crochet's masterpiece of a performance on the mound, share insights about his Game 2 lineup, and much more.
Adeline Atlas 11 X Published AUTHOR Digital Twin: Create Your AI Clone: https://tinyurl.com/y375cbxnSOS: School of Soul Vault: Full Access ALL SERIEShttps://www.soulreno.com/joinus-202f0461-ba1e-4ff8-8111-9dee8c726340Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/soulrenovation/Soul Renovation - BooksSoul Game - https://tinyurl.com/vay2xdcpWhy Play: https://tinyurl.com/2eh584jfHow To Play: https://tinyurl.com/2ad4msf3Digital Soul: https://tinyurl.com/3hk29s9xEvery Word: https://www.soulreno.com/every-wordDrain Me: https://tinyurl.com/bde5fnf4The Rabbit Hole: https://tinyurl.com/3swnmxfjSpanish Editions:Every Word: https://tinyurl.com/ytec7cvcDrain Me: https://tinyurl.com/3jv4fc5n
On the roundup this week, we have to start with Sam Darnold and his better-than-a-best-case scenario start to this season. A look at the defense and the sterling play of Ernest Jones in the middle. All that and a review of the weekly PFF scores, our Playcall of the Week, and the Hero and Hit of the Week. Plus, we'll cover the latest Seahawks news and keep tabs on the rest of the NFC West. Join us for all this and more as we unpack the week that was and start to look ahead. Use promo code NEST on Sleeper and get 100% match up to $100! https://Sleeper.com/promo/NEST. Terms and conditions apply. #Sleeper Link to my YouTube Channel. Live on Wed and Sunday, 5PM PST...https://www.youtube.com/@TheHawksNest12thman?sub_confirmation=1 Link to my Patreon....https://www.patreon.com/thehawksnest Twitter...@SeahawksNester Twitch...@TheSeahawksNest Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
The Chiefs pulled together their best performance of recent memory this past Sunday, taking down the Baltimore Ravens in Arrowhead in what can only be described as DOMINANT. From the Offense firing on all cylinders with Xavier Worthy's return, to Spags and the Defense putting Lamar and the Ravens in a blender, it was a performance we hope to see more of from the Chiefs!Follow us @KingdomSaysPodlinktr.ee/kingdomsaysSign up to Underdog with our code KINGDOMSAYS to claim your Free Pick + First Time Deposit offer up to $1,000 in bonus cash! https://play.underdogfantasy.com/p-kingdom-says
In this episode of "Not Another Bucking Podcast," host Nick Kosmider breaks down the Denver Broncos' commanding 28-3 victory over the Cincinnati Bengals. From Bo Nix's career-high passing yards to the dynamic duo of JK Dobbins and RJ Harvey, we discuss the key plays and strategies that led to this crucial win. They also explore the challenges ahead as the Broncos prepare to face the undefeated Philadelphia Eagles. Tune in for an in-depth analysis of the game and what it means for the Broncos' season.
CLNS Media's Taylor Kyles and SI's Mike Kadlick are back to break down the Patriots' 42-16 win over the Panthers, taking a look at areas for optimism and improvement. Plus, they go through the team's rookies to see how they fared in the victory. Patriots Daily on CLNS Media is Powered by:
(00:00) Zolak & Bertrand begin the show recapping the Patriots first home win of the season and the positives they saw especially with Drake Maye and Stefon Diggs.(12:05) The crew discusses the improvement they have seen in Drake Maye's game as the first four weeks have progressed. (25:15) We highlight the Patriots special teams, specifically Marcus Jones and his crucial punt return for a touchdown in the first quarter. (35:22) Zo and Beetle close out the hour diving into the overall game reaction from Pats fans being all over the map. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Matt Derrick and Nick Jacobs break down the Chiefs’ statement victory. They dive into Xavier Worthy’s explosive impact, why Steve Spagnuolo has become the coordinator every offense fears, how the offensive line is taking big strides, and what tweaks could take this Kansas City offense back to its 2018 glory.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In this special livestream edition of Dom Sub Devotion, Andrew and Dawn go live with the audience for an “Ask Dawn Anything” session. For the first time in quite a while on the podcast, listeners get to hear Dawn answer your most personal questions about life inside their 24/7 D/s marriage, from sex and submission to everyday “normal” moments and how she's grown into her sexuality. This episode is part intimate conversation, part coaching, and part behind-the-scenes look at how their dynamic actually works in real life. What We Cover in This Episode • “Normal” life in a 24/7 D/s dynamic: how Andrew and Dawn integrate kink, leadership, and devotion into everyday moments like dinners out or running errands. • The truth about collars: what Dawn's collar means to her, when she wears it, and how they navigate social situations where others may not understand. • Differences in libido & desire: how they've handled mismatched sex drives over the years, why communication and patience matter, and how they've shifted from obligation to authentic desire. • Dawn's sexual awakening: moving from religious shame and dissociation to curiosity, kink, and deep pleasure. • Being on camera together: what it's like to film intimate scenes for OnlyFans, how Dawn overcame fears of “performing,” and why exhibitionism fuels her. • Power, surrender & pleasing: the difference between healthy devotion and people-pleasing, and how Andrew leads her through resistance instead of forcing compliance. • Fitness, food & control: how Dawn has unraveled old control patterns around her body and movement, and what freedom now feels like. • Faith & sexuality: how exploring her erotic self has brought Dawn closer to God, the universe, and her own soul. • Their origin story: what originally attracted Dawn to Andrew before D/s was even on the table, and how their relationship began. Why This Episode Matters This conversation shows the real human side of living in a long-term D/s marriage—the patience, communication, and self-discovery it takes to create a relationship where kink, devotion, and everyday life seamlessly blend. Whether you're a Dominant, a submissive, or simply curious, you'll walk away with a deeper understanding of what's possible when desire and trust replace obligation and fear. Resources & Next Steps If you're ready to go deeper, explore our courses and offerings: • Rapture — a journey into devotional D/s and erotic embodiment. https://infinitedevotion.com/rapture • Becoming a Dominant Man — Andrew's path for men ready to lead with clarity and integrity. https://infinitedevotion.com/becoming-a-dominant-man • Structuring Your D/s Dynamic — build a relationship structure that actually works for you. https://infinitedevotion.com/structuring-your-ds-dynamic • OnlyFans. Take a look inside our bedroom. https://onlyfans.com/dawnofdesire ⸻ Stay Connected • Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube. • Join our email list for updates and new episodes: https://infinitedevotion.com • Follow us on Instagram: @_infinitedevotion.
Will the Texans be a road favorite vs the Ravens if Lamar Jackson is ruled out? What does it mean for the Texans that DeMeco Ryans relinquished defensive playcalling to Matt Burke? Did Woody Marks establish himself as the Texans RB1? Did CJ Stroud show signs that he can be one of the leagues best QB's again this season? Nitpicking issues from Texans dominant win vs the Titans
ESPN's Field Yates joins the show to recap the Chiefs big win against the Ravens in Week 4!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In a bounce-back performance, Utah football was in complete control on the road against West Virginia. The offense opened up the passing game, and it meant a world of difference for the team en route to a 48-14 win in Morgantown. Host Josh Furlong recaps the game, using advanced stats to show how the passing game was a major component into Utah doing what it needs to do to win games each week. Stay up to date with University of Utah athletics news and coverage from KSL.com Sports on social media platform X @KSLcomSports and on KSL.com. Follow Josh Furlong @JFurKSL
Tom Curran and Phil Perry react to the Patriots' dominant 42-13 win over the Carolina Panthers to improve to 2-2 on the season. Is this team finally starting to build something after years of bad football? And are we really seeing the second year leap from Drake Maye? 1:00- Patriots seem to finally be pulling themselves out of contention for the dregs of the league8:30- What impressed you the most from Drake Maye's performance vs. the Panthers?15:00- Is Stefon Diggs' proving himself to be a selfless leader on this offense?20:35- What do you need to see from the Patriots in Buffalo next Sunday night?26:10- Thoughts on the way Rhamondre Stevenson, Christian Gonzalez and Milton Williams were used in the game this afternoon? WATCH every episode of the Patriots Talk podcast on YouTubeFollow NBC Sports Boston:NBCSportsBoston.comX @NBCSpatriotsFacebookInstagramTikTok Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Episode SummaryDr. Ali Novitsky, MD—physician, obesity medicine specialist, and strength-focused coach—dives into six dominant stress types and how spotting yours helps you regulate at the source. Drawing on years of coaching high-achieving women (especially physicians), Ali explains why addressing root stress beats symptom management, how to get “out of your head and into your body,” and what practical resets look like in real life. Expect clear examples, quick-start tools, and a compassionate, muscle-first approach to sustainable health.The Six Ditress Types (Quick Guide)Impulsivity — Acts fast to end discomfort; struggles to pause, risking burnout. *Try:* micro-pauses, urge surfing, 60–90s delay before action.Validation — Seeks external approval; second-guesses self. *Try:* self-validation scripts, “good-enough” reps, boundary micro-steps.Catastrophizing — Jumps to worst-case; superb risk-spotter but anxious. *Try:* evidence checks, bounded “worry windows,” solution sprints.Isolation — Pulls inward to avoid vulnerability; reliable yet guarded. *Try:* one safe share/day, grounding in the body, scheduled reconnects.Control — Tightens rules and plans; rigid when life shifts. *Try:* 90% plan experiments, two-option flexibility drills.Assertive — “Fix it now” mode; can read as aggressive. *Try:* wait–observe–act protocols, clarifying questions first.Why This Matters* Early regulation > downstream damage. Catch your pattern before it drives overeating, overworking, people-pleasing, or doom planning.* Not your personality. A stress type is a *trainable* response, not your identity.* Better teams & relationships. Shared language around stress patterns creates harmony and effectiveness.Ali's Approach* Root-first: regulate stress before chasing outcomes.* Muscle-first: prioritize strength for longevity, energy, and metabolic health (especially 35+).* Personalized: plans that honor genetics, life stage, and mindset—sometimes the work is muscle-building, sometimes body acceptance, sometimes gentle resets.Key Takeaways* Name your dominant type and two “early tells.”* Pair each tell with a tiny, body-based reset.* Progress is seasonal: adapt goals without judgment.* Community and safe coaching make change stick.Timestamps00:00 - What “stress types” are and why start here00:00:49 - Targeting root stress vs. symptom management00:01:20 - Regulate upfront to prevent reactive habits00:01:52 - Stress Type Quiz00:02:14 - Chronic stress and behavior/health00:02:35 - Regulated vs. chronic stress00:02:45 -How these six types emerged from real-world coaching00:03:39 - The TRANSFORM concept: body-first regulation00:04:21 - Patterns among high-achieving women00:06:10 -Catastrophizing vs. Numbness00:06:42 - Dominant vs. secondary patterns00:07:04 - Using your type in daily life00:07:35 - Using types to improve relationships/teams00:08:20 -Types ≠ personality labels00:09:02 - Control (expectations & flexibility)00:13:01 - Impulsivity (build the pause muscle)00:15:09 - Validation (approve from within)00:19:09 - Catastrophizing (turn it into problem-solving)00:21:10 - Isolation (safe vulnerability)00:26:01 - Assertive (act without reactivity)00:30:08 - Recap of all six types + first steps00:31:04 - Common triggers by type & targeted resets00:32:18 - TRANSFORM 10.0 overview00:33:00 - What's next: research, tools, and supportWork with Dr. Ali
Coach Lowe calls in Springs Valley vs. Crawford County, where Springs won 47-6. We jump to Ron Qualls to follow with his action in his Indy Shortridge vs. Crystal House, 55-0. Dominant win from them and he talks his best from the game. Jason West joins in to talk about his team and who stood out. Coach Austin Foust calls in to talk Culver Community vs. Caston. He talks about their tough game and what they can do moving forward and cleaning up. Coach Comer from Danville talks about their 37-13 win against an out-of-state team, listen to see who it was. Coach from South Putnam calls in for their win against West Vego, 69-13. Kurt Darling with WMUN calls in for Monroe Central vs. Wes Dell, 21-14. Coach Casey Mckim calls in with Lowell High vs. Hobert, with a close win in the form of 20-17.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Coach Rowland breaks down Southeast Warren big homecoming win over Montezuma, highlighting a 350-yard rushing performance, key defensive interceptions, and strong special teams play. He also discusses potential playoff matchups (Gladbrook-Reinbeck, Don Bosco, Audubon, Iowa Valley), the team’s 5-0 momentum, and the upcoming test against Lennox, plus an update on an injured Fairfield player.
NEW YORK, NY - In this week's episode of The Rugby Odds, host Matt McCarthy is joined by:
Gio Palermo, better known as Legorocks99, joins the show to discuss the Wings' dominant 3-2 win over the Chicago Blackhawks, standout performances from guys like Emmitt Finnie & Nate Danielson, and what's new in EA's NHL26! We have an exclusive collection with Vintage Detroit! https://www.vintagedetroit.com/product-category/keep-it-local/the-grind-line-podcast/ Remember to follow us on Twitter & Instagram @GrindLinePod and join our Discord at discord.gg/mQ6KP6ePGX Rate, review, subscribe, and check out our merch on Redbubble! https://www.redbubble.com/people/TheGrindLine/shop Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Think about what it takes to win a state championship. Now imagine doing that 10 times! As the Head Volleyball coach at RHAM High School in Hebron, Connecticut, Tim Guernsey has made that astonishing Achievement. Before Tim began running the volleyball program at RHAM High school, it didn't even exist. He built it from the ground up into a program now known for dominating the court. Hear why one of his biggest challenges today is teaching his new players that winning doesn't come as easy as he and his team make it seem.Links mentioned: For more information go to www.side-out.org. Follow the side-out organization on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/sideoutfndn/Have suggestions for the podcast? Email Janice: leaveitbetter@side-out.org
The Mets closer is the one reliable player in New York
ESPN's fantastic beat reporter joins the show to review Seattle's 44-13 win over New Orleans. They dive into Sam Darnold's fit in Klint Kubiak's offense, the lagging run game, Jaxon Smith-Njigba's emergence as one of the game's great receivers, and a big day for defense and special teams.Jacson and Brady then look forward to a TNF clash against the Cardinals before dissecting the NFC West and each team's way-too-soon status as contender or pretender.Purchase Cigar Thoughts Red Zone stogies right here: https://anthonyscigars.com/product-line/Cigar-thoughts-cthttps://CigarThoughtsNFL.com
Join the C3 crew as they discuss the Panthers' DOMINANT defensive performance against the Atlanta Falcons, preview the week 4 match up with the New England Patriots, discuss the injury of Ja'Tavion Sanders and its implications for the TE Mitchell Evans, and YOUR Cat Calls at 252-228-5098!
Dominant win against the Raiders. You love to see every phase of the football game come together to get a win. This team was desperate for a performance like this after the Green Bay loss. This week we discuss the game and the rash of injuries, especially what to do with Jayden going into Week 4. _____________________________Intro & Outro: "Fast Life" (Shut Your Face Theme Song) by SanjayCCheck out his YouTube channel: youtube.com/sanjayc
Valenti and Rico began today's show declaring their new expectations for the Lions after what Mike called the best regular season game he's seen from them last night. They heard your thoughts as well before doing an all-encompassing In Football Today to wrap up the hour.
Minnesota Vikings franchise left tackle Christian Darrisaw was DOMINANT is his season debut. --- A Northern Digital Production
On today’s episode, Jason discusses the Detroit Lions’ demolition of the Baltimore Ravens on Monday Night Football, whether the Lions should not be viewed as the best team in the NFC after earning what is easily the most impressive victory of the young NFL season, if Baltimore has the defensive horses to realize their Super Bowl potential, and why the Week 4 showdown between the Ravens and the Kansas City Chiefs suddenly feels like a must-win for both teams. Follow Jason on Twitter and Instagram. Click here to subscribe, rate and review all of the latest Straight Fire with Jason McIntyre podcasts! #FSRSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
On this episode, my guest is Stephen Jenkinson, culture activist and ceremonialist advocating a handmade life and eloquence. He is an author, a storyteller, a musician, sculptor and off-grid organic farmer. Stephen is the founder/ principal instructor of the Orphan Wisdom School in Canada, co-founded with his wife Nathalie Roy in 2010. Also a sought-after workshop leader, articulating matters of the heart, human suffering, confusions through ceremony.He is the author of several influential books, including Money and the Soul's Desires, Die Wise: A Manifesto for Sanity and Soul (2015), Come of Age: The Case for Elderhood in a Time of Trouble (2018), A Generation's Worth: Spirit Work While the Crisis Reigns (2021), and Reckoning (2022), co-written with Kimberly Ann Johnson. His most recent book, Matrimony: Ritual, Culture, and the Heart's Work, was released in August 2025. He is also involved in the musical project Nights of Grief & Mystery with singer-songwriter Gregory Hoskins, which has toured across North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand.Show Notes:* The Bone House of the Orphan Wisdom Enterprise* Matrimony: Ritual, Culture and the Heart's Work* The Wedding Industry* Romantic Sameness and Psychic Withering* The Two Tribes* The Roots of Hospitality* The Pompous Ending of Hospitality* Debt, And the Estrangement of the Stranger* More Than Human Hospitality* The Alchemy of the Orphan Wisdom SchoolHomework:Matrimony: Ritual, Culture, and the Heart's Work | PurchaseOrphan WisdomThe Scriptorium: Echoes of an Orphan WisdomTranscription:Chris: This is an interview that I've been wondering about for a long time in part, because Stephen was the first person I ever interviewed for the End of Tourism Podcast. In Oaxaca, Mexico, where I live Stephen and Natalie were visiting and were incredibly, incredibly generous. Stephen, in offering his voice as a way to raise up my questions to a level that deserve to be contended with.We spoke for about two and a half hours, if I remember correctly. And there was a lot in what you spoke to towards the second half of the interview that I think we're the first kind of iterations of the Matrimony book.We spoke a little bit about the stranger and trade, and it was kind of startling as someone trying to offer their first interview and suddenly hearing something [00:01:00] that I'd never heard before from Stephen. Right. And so it was quite impressive. And I'm grateful to be here now with y'all and to get to wonder about this a little more deeply with you Stephen.Stephen: Mm-hmm. Hmm.Chris: This is also a special occasion for the fact that for the first time in the history of the podcast, we have a live audience among us today. Strange doings. Some scholars and some stewards and caretakers of the Orphan Wisdom enterprise. So, thank you all as well for coming tonight and being willing to listen and put your ears to this.And so to begin, Stephen, I'm wondering if you'd be willing to let those who will be listening to this recording later on know where we're gathered in tonight?Stephen: Well, we're in... what's the name of this township?Nathalie: North Algona.Stephen: North Algona township on the borders, an eastern gate [00:02:00] of Algonquin Park. Strangely named place, given the fact that they were the first casualties of the park being established. And we're in a place that never should have been cleared - my farm. It should never have been cleared of the talls, the white pines that were here, but the admiralty was in need back in the day. And that's what happened there. And we're in a place that the Irish immigrants who came here after the famine called "Tramore," which more or less means "good-frigging luck farming."It doesn't technically mean that, but it absolutely means that. It actually means "sandy shore," which about covers the joint, and it's the only thing that covers the joint - would be sand. You have to import clay. Now, that's a joke in many farming places in the world, but if we wanted any clay, we'd have to bring it in and pay for the privilege.And the farm has been in [00:03:00] my, my responsibility for about 25 years now, pretty close to that. And the sheep, or those of them left because the coyotes have been around for the first time in their casualty-making way... They're just out here, I'm facing the field where they're milling around.And it's the very, very beginnings of the long cooling into cold, into frigid, which is our lot in this northern part of the hemisphere, even though it's still August, but it's clear that things have changed. And then, we're on a top of a little hill, which was the first place that I think that we may have convened a School here.It was a tipi, which is really worked very well considering we didn't live here, so we could put it up and put it down in the same weekend. [00:04:00] And right on this very hill, we were, in the early days, and we've replaced that tipi with another kind of wooden structure. A lot more wood in this one.This has been known as "The Teaching Hall" or "The Great Hall," or "The Hall" or "The Money Pit, as it was known for a little while, but it actually worked out pretty well. And it was I mean, people who've come from Scandinavia are knocked out by the kind of old-style, old-world visitation that the place seems to be to them.And I'd never really been before I had the idea what this should look like, but I just went from a kind of ancestral memory that was knocking about, which is a little different than your preferences, you know. You have different kinds of preferences you pass through stylistically through your life, but the ones that lay claim to you are the ones that are not interested in your [00:05:00] preferences. They're interested in your kind of inheritance and your lineage.So I'm more or less from the northern climes of Northern Europe, and so the place looks that way and I was lucky enough to still have my carving tools from the old days. And I've carved most of the beams and most of the posts that keep the place upright with a sort of sequence of beasts and dragons and ne'er-do-wells and very, very few humans, I think two, maybe, in the whole joint. Something like that. And then, mostly what festoons a deeply running human life is depicted here. And there's all kinds of stories, which I've never really sat down and spoken to at great length with anybody, but they're here.And I do deeply favour the idea that one day [00:06:00] somebody will stumble into this field, and I suppose, upon the remains of where we sit right now, and wonder "What the hell got into somebody?" That they made this mountain of timber moldering away, and that for a while what must have been, and when they finally find the footprint of, you know, its original dimensions and sort of do the wild math and what must have been going on in this sandy field, a million miles in away from its home.And wherever I am at that time, I'll be wondering the same thing.Audience: Hmm.Stephen: "What went on there?" Even though I was here for almost all of it. So, this was the home of the Orphan Wisdom School for more than a decade and still is the home of the Orphan Wisdom School, even if it's in advance, or in retreat [00:07:00] or in its doldrums. We'll see.And many things besides, we've had weddings in here, which is wherein I discovered "old-order matrimony," as I've come to call it, was having its way with me in the same way that the design of the place did. And it's also a grainery for our storage of corn. Keep it up off the ground and out of the hands of the varmints, you know, for a while.Well that's the beginning.Chris: Hmm. Hmm. Thank you Stephen.Stephen: Mm-hmm.Chris: You were mentioning the tipi where the school began. I remember sleeping in there the first time I came here. Never would I have thought for a million years that I'd be sitting here with you.Stephen: It's wild, isn't it?Chris: 12 years later.?: Yeah.Chris: And so next, I'd like to do my best in part over the course of the next perhaps hour or two to congratulate you on the release of [00:08:00] your new book, Matrimony: Ritual, Culture, and the Heart's Work.Stephen: Thank you.Chris: Mm-hmm. I'm grateful to say like many others that I've received a copy and have lent my eyes to your good words, and what is really an incredible achievement.For those who haven't had a chance to lay their eyes on it just yet, I'm wondering if you could let us in on why you wrote a book about matrimony in our time and where it stands a week out from its publication.Stephen: Well, maybe the answer begins with the question, "why did you write a book, having done so before?" And you would imagine that the stuff that goes into writing a book, you'd think that the author has hopes for some kind of redemptive, redeeming outcome, some kind of superlative that drops out the back end of the enterprise.And you know, this is [00:09:00] the seventh I've written. And I would have to say that's not really how it goes, and you don't really know what becomes of what you've written, even with the kind people who do respond, and the odd non-monetary prize that comes your way, which Die Wise gamed that.But I suppose, I wrote, at all partly to see what was there. You know, I had done these weddings and I was a little bit loathe to let go, to let the weddings turn entirely into something historical, something that was past, even though I probably sensed pretty clearly that I was at the end of my willingness to subject myself to the slings and arrows that came along with the enterprise, but it's a sweet sorrow, or there's a [00:10:00] wonder that goes along with the tangle of it all. And so, I wrote to find out what happened, as strange as that might sound to you. You can say, "well, you were there, you kind of knew what happened." But yes, I was witness to the thing, but there's the act of writing a book gives you the opportunity to sort of wonder in three-dimensions and well, the other thing I should say is I was naive and figured that the outfit who had published the, more or less prior two books to this one, would kind of inevitably be drawn to the fact that same guy. Basically, same voice, new articulation. And I was dumbfounded to find out that they weren't. And so, it's sort of smarted, you know?And I think what I did was I just set the whole [00:11:00] enterprise aside, partly to contend with the the depths of the disappointment in that regard, and also not wanting to get into the terrible fray of having to parse or paraphrase the book in some kind of elevator pitch-style to see if anybody else wanted to look at it. You know, such as my touchy sense of nobility sometimes, you know, that I just rather not be involved in the snarl of the marketplace any longer.So, I withdrew and I just set it aside but it wasn't that content to be set, set aside. And you know, to the book's credit, it bothered me every once in a while. It wasn't a book at the point where I was actually trying to engineer it, you know, and, and give it some kind of structure. I had piles of paper on the floor representing the allegation of chapters, trying to figure out what the relationship was [00:12:00] between any of these things.What conceivably should come before what. What the names of any of these things might be. Did they have an identity? Was I just imposing it? And all of that stuff I was going through at the same time as I was contending with a kind of reversal in fortune, personally. And so in part, it was a bit of a life raft to give me something to work on that I wouldn't have to research or dig around in the backyard for it and give me some sort of self-administered occupation for a while.Finally, I think there's a parallel with the Die Wise book, in that when it came to Die Wise, I came up with what I came up with largely because, in their absolute darkest, most unpromising hours, an awful lot of dying people, all of whom are dead now, [00:13:00] let me in on some sort of breach in the, the house of their lives.And I did feel that I had some obligation to them long-term, and that part of that obligation turned into writing Die Wise and touring and talking about that stuff for years and years, and making a real fuss as if I'd met them all, as if what happened is really true. Not just factually accurate, but deeply, abidingly, mandatorily true.So, although it may be the situation doesn't sound as extreme, but the truth is, when a number of younger - than me - people came to me and asked me to do their weddings, I, over the kind of medium-term thereafter, felt a not dissimilar obligation that the events that ensued from all of that not [00:14:00] be entrusted entirely to those relatively few people who attended. You know, you can call them "an audience," although I hope I changed that. Or you could call them "witnesses," which I hope I made them that.And see to it that there could be, not the authorized or official version of what happened, but to the view from here, so to speak, which is, as I sit where I am in the hall right now, I can look at the spot where I conducted much of this when I wasn't sacheting up and down the middle aisle where the trestle tables now are.And I wanted to give a kind of concerted voice to that enterprise. And I say "concerted voice" to give you a feel for the fact that I don't think this is a really an artifact. It's not a record. It's a exhortation that employs the things that happened to suggest that even though it is the way it is [00:15:00] ritually, impoverished as it is in our time and place, it has been otherwise within recoverable time and history. It has.And if that's true, and it is, then it seems to me at least is true that it could be otherwise again. And so, I made a fuss and I made a case based on that conviction.There's probably other reasons I can't think of right now. Oh, being not 25 anymore, and not having that many more books in me, the kind of wear and tear on your psyche of imposing order on the ramble, which is your recollection, which has only so many visitations available in it. Right? You can only do that so many times, I think. And I'm not a born writing person, you know, I come to it maniacally when I [00:16:00] do, and then when it's done, I don't linger over it so much.So then, when it's time to talk about it, I actually have to have a look, because the act of writing it is not the act of reading it. The act of writing is a huge delivery and deliverance at the same time. It's a huge gestation. And you can't do that to yourself, you know, over and over again, but you can take some chances, and look the thing in the eye. So, and I think some people who are there, they're kind of well-intended amongst them, will recognize themselves in the details of the book, beyond "this is what happened and so on." You know, they'll recognize themselves in the advocacy that's there, and the exhortations that are there, and the [00:17:00] case-making that I made and, and probably the praying because there's a good degree of prayerfulness in there, too.That's why.Chris: Thank you. bless this new one in the world. And what's the sense for you?Stephen: Oh, yes.Chris: It being a one-week old newborn. How's that landing in your days?Stephen: Well, it's still damp, you know. It's still squeaky, squeaky and damp. It's walking around like a newborn primate, you know, kind of swaying in the breeze and listening to port or to starboard according to whatever's going on.I don't know that it's so very self-conscious in the best sense of that term, yet. Even though I recorded the audio version, I don't think [00:18:00] it's my voice is found every nook and cranny at this point, yet. So, it's kind of new. It's not "news," but it is new to me, you know, and it's very early in terms of anybody responding to it.I mean, nobody around me has really taken me aside and say, "look, now I want to tell you about this book you wrote." It hasn't happened, and we'll see if it does, but I've done a few events on the other side of the ocean and hear so far, very few, maybe handful of interviews. And those are wonderful opportunities to hear something of what you came up with mismanaged by others, you know, misapprehend, you could say by others.No problem. I mean, it's absolutely no problem. And if you don't want that to happen, don't talk, don't write anything down. So, I don't mind a bit, you know, and the chances are very good that it'll turn into things I didn't have in mind [00:19:00] as people take it up, and regard their own weddings and marriages and plans and schemes and fears and, you know, family mishigas and all the rest of it through this particular lens, you know. They may pick up a pen or a computer (it's an odd expression, "pick up a computer"), and be in touch with me and let me know. "Yeah, that was, we tried it" or whatever they're going to do, because, I mean, maybe Die Wise provided a bit of an inkling of how one might be able to proceed otherwise in their dying time or in their families or their loved ones dying time.This is the book that most readily lends itself to people translating into something they could actually do, without a huge kind of psychic revolution or revolt stirring in them, at least not initially. This is as close as I come, probably, to writing a sequence of things [00:20:00] that could be considered "add-ons" to what people are already thinking about, that I don't force everybody else outta the house in order to make room for the ideas that are in the book. That may happen, anyway, but it wasn't really the intent. The intent was to say, you know, we are in those days when we're insanely preoccupied with the notion of a special event. We are on the receiving end of a considerable number of shards showing up without any notion really about what these shards remember or are memories of. And that's the principle contention I think that runs down the spine of the book, is that when we undertake matrimony, however indelicately, however by rote, you know, however mindlessly we may do it, [00:21:00] inadvertently, we call upon those shards nonetheless.And they're pretty unspectacular if you don't think about them very deeply, like the rice or confetti, like the aisle, like the procession up the aisle, like the giving away of someone, like the seating arrangement, like the spectacle seating arrangement rather than the ritual seating arrangement.And I mean, there's a fistful of them. And they're around and scholars aside maybe, nobody knows why they do them. Everybody just knows, "this is what a wedding is," but nobody knows why. And because nobody knows why, nobody really seems to know what a wedding is for, although they do proceed like they would know a wedding if they saw one. So, I make this a question to be really wondered about, and the shards are a way in. They're the kind of [00:22:00] breadcrumb trail through the forest. They're the little bits of broken something, which if you begin to handle just three or four of them, and kind of fit them together, and find something of the original shape and inflection of the original vessel, kind of enunciates, begins to murmur in your hands, and from it you can begin to infer some three-dimensionality to the original shape. And from the sense of the shape, you get a set sense of contour, and from the sense of contour, you get a sense of scale or size. And from that you get a sense of purpose, or function, or design. And from that you get a sense of some kind of serious magisterial insight into some of the fundament of human being that was manifest in the "old-order matrimony," [00:23:00] as I came to call it.So, who wouldn't wanna read that book?Chris: Mm-hmm.Thank you. Mm-hmm. Thank you, Stephen. Yeah. It reminds me, just before coming up here, maybe two weeks ago, I was in attending a wedding. And there was a host or mc, and initially just given what I was hearing over the microphone, it was hard to tell if he was hired or family or friends. And it turned out he was, in fact, a friend of the groom. And throughout the night he proceeded to take up that role as a kind of comedian.Audience: Mm-hmm.Chris: This was the idea, I guess. Mm-hmm. And he was buzzing and mumbling and swearing into the microphone, [00:24:00] and then finally minimizing the only remnant of traditional culture that showed up in the wedding. And his thing was, okay, so when can we get to the part where it's boom, boom, boom, right. And shot, shot, shot, whatever.Stephen: Right.Chris: There was so much that came up in my memories in part because I worked about a decade in Toronto in the wedding industry.Mm-hmm. Hospitality industry. Maybe a contradiction in terms, there. And there was one moment that really kind of summed it up. I kept coming back to this reading the book because it was everything that you wrote seemed to not only antithetical to this moment, but also an antidote.Anyways, it was in North Toronto and the [00:25:00] owner of the venue - it was a kind of movie theatre turned event venue - and there was a couple who was eventually going to get married there. They came in to do their tasting menu to see what they wanted to put on the menu for the dinner, for their wedding.And the owner was kind of this mafioso type. And he comes in and he sees them and he walks over and he says, "so, you're gonna get married at my wedding factory."Audience: Mm-hmm.Chris: In all sincerity.Stephen: Mm-hmm.Chris: Right.Without skipping a beat. Could you imagine?Stephen: Yeah.I could. I sure could.Chris: Yeah. Yeah.Stephen: I mean, don't forget, if these people weren't doing what the people wanted, they'd be outta business.Audience: Mm-hmm.Stephen: No, that's the thing. This is aiding and abetting. This is sleeping with the enemy, stylistically-speaking. [00:26:00] The fact that people "settle" (that's the term I would use for it), settle for this, the idea being that this somehow constitutes the most honest and authentic through line available to us is just jaw dropping. When you consider what allegedly this thing is supposed to be for. I mean, maybe we'll get into this, but I'll just leave this as a question for now. What is that moment allegedly doing?Not, what are the people in it allegedly doing? The moment itself, what is it? How is it different from us sitting here now talking about it? And how is it different from the gory frigging jet-fuelled aftermath of excess. And how's it different from the cursing alleged master of ceremonies? How can you [00:27:00] tell none of those things belong to this thing?And why do you have such a hard time imagining what doesAudience: Hmm mmChris: Well that leads me to my next question.Stephen: Ah, you're welcome.Chris: So, I've pulled a number of quotes from the book to read from over the course of the interview. And this one for anyone who's listening is on page 150. And you write Stephen,"Spiritually-speaking, most of the weddings in our corner of the world are endogamous affairs, inward-looking. What is, to me, most unnerving is that they can be spiritually-incestuous. The withering of psychic difference between people is the program of globalization. It is in the architecture of most things partaking of the internet, and it is in the homogeneity of our matrimony. [00:28:00] It is this very incestuous that matrimony was once crafted and entered into to avoid and subvert. Now, it grinds upon our differences until they are details.And so, this paragraph reminded me of a time in my youth when I seemed to be meeting couples who very eerily looked like each other. No blood or extended kin relation whatsoever, and yet they had very similar faces. And so as I get older, this kind of face fidelity aside, I continue to notice that people looking for companionship tend to base their search on similitude, on shared interests, customs, experiences, shared anything and everything. This, specifically, in opposition to those on the other side of the aisle or spectrum, to difference or divergence. And so, opposites don't attract anymore. I'm curious what you think this psychic [00:29:00] withering does to an achieve understanding of matrimony.Stephen: Well, I mean, let's wonder what it does to us, generally, first before we get to matrimony, let's say. It demonizes. Maybe that's too strong, but it certainly reconstitutes difference as some kind of affliction, some kind of not quite good enough, some kind of something that has to be overcome or overwhelmed on the road to, to what? On the road to sameness? So, if that's the goal, then are all of the differences between us, aberrations of some kind, if that's the goal? If that's the goal, are all the [00:30:00] differences between us, not God-given, but humanly misconstrued or worse? Humanly wrought? Do the differences between us conceivably then belong at all? Or is the principle object of the entire endeavor to marry yourself, trying to put up with the vague differences that the other person represents to you?I mean, I not very jokingly said years ago, that I coined a phrase that went something like "the compromise of infinity, which is other people." What does that mean? "The compromise of infinity, which is other people." Not to mention it's a pretty nice T-shirt. But what I meant by the [00:31:00] phrase is this: when you demonize difference in this fashion or when you go the other direction and lionize sameness, then one of the things that happens is that compromise becomes demonized, too. Compromise, by definition, is something you never should have done, right? Compromise is how much you surrender of yourself in order to get by. That's what all these things become. And before you know it, you're just beaten about the head and shoulders about "codependence" and you know, not being "true to yourself" as if being true to yourself is some kind of magic.I mean, the notion that "yourself is the best part of you" is just hilarious. I mean, when you think about it, like who's running amuck if yourself is what you're supposed to be? I ask you. Like, who's [00:32:00] doing the harm? Who's going mental if the self is such a good idea? So, of course, I'm maintaining here that I'm not persuaded that there is such a thing.I think it's a momentary lapse in judgment to have a self and to stick to it. That's the point I'm really making to kind of reify it until it turns ossified and dusty and bizarrely adamant like that estranged relative that lives in the basement of your house. Bizarrely, foreignly adamant, right? Like the house guest who just won't f**k off kind of thing.Okay, so "to thine own self be true," is it? Well, try being true to somebody else's self for ten minutes. Try that. [00:33:00] That's good at exercise for matrimony - being true to somebody else's self. You'll discover that their selves are not made in heaven, either. Either. I underscore it - either. I've completely lost track of the question you asked me.Chris: What are the consequences of the sameness on this anti-cultural sameness, and the program of it for an achieved understanding of matrimony.Stephen: Thank you. Well, I will fess up right now. I do so in the book. That's a terrible phrase. I swear I'd never say such a thing. "In my book... I say the following," but in this case, it's true. I did say this. I realized during the writing of it that I had made a tremendous tactical error in the convening of the event as I did it over the years, [00:34:00] and this is what it came to.I was very persuaded at the time of the story that appears in the chapter called "Salt and Indigo" in the book. I was very, very persuaded. I mean, listen, I made up the story (for what it's worth), okay, but I didn't make it up out of nothing. I made it up out of a kind of tribal memory that wouldn't quite let go.And in it, I was basically saying, here's these two tribes known principally for what they trade in and what they love most emphatically. They turn out to be the same thing. And I describe a circumstance in which they exchange things in a trade scenario, not a commerce scenario. And I'm using the chapter basically to make the case that matrimony's architecture derives in large measure from the sacraments of trade as manifest in that story. [00:35:00] Okay. And this is gonna sound obvious, but the fundamental requirement of the whole conceit that I came up with is that there are two tribes. Well, I thought to myself, "of course, there's always two tribes" at the time. And the two tribe-ness is reflected in when you come to the wedding site, you're typically asked (I hope you're still asked) " Are you family or friend of the groom or friend of the bride?" And you're seated "accordingly," right? That's the nominal, vestigial shard of this old tribal affiliation, that people came from over the rise, basically unknown to each other, to arrive at the kind of no man's land of matrimony, and proceeded accordingly. So, I put these things into motion in this very room and I sat people accordingly facing each other, not facing the alleged front of the room. [00:36:00] And of course, man, nobody knew where to look, because you raised your eyes and s**t. There's just humans across from you, just scads of them who you don't freaking know. And there's something about doing that to North Americas that just throws them. So, they're just looking at each other and then looking away, and looking at each other and looking away, and wondering what they're doing here and what it's for. And I'm going back and forth for three hours, orienting them as to what is is coming.Okay, so what's the miscalculation that I make? The miscalculation I made was assuming that by virtue of the seating arrangement, by virtue of me reminding them of the salt and indigo times, by virtue of the fact that they had a kind of allegiance of some sort or another to the people who are, for the moment, betrothed, that those distinctions and those affiliations together would congeal them, and constitute a [00:37:00] kind of tribal affiliation that they would intuitively be drawn towards as you would be drawn to heat on a cold winter's night.Only to discover, as I put the thing into motion that I was completely wrong about everything I just told you about. The nature of my error was this, virtually all of those people on one side of the room were fundamentally of the same tribe as the people on the other side of the room, apropos of your question, you see. They were card carrying members of the gray dominant culture of North America. Wow. The bleached, kind of amorphous, kind of rootless, ancestor-free... even regardless of whether their people came over in the last generation from the alleged old country. It doesn't really claim them.[00:38:00]There were two tribes, but I was wrong about who they were. That was one tribe. Virtually everybody sitting in the room was one tribe.So, who's the other tribe? Answer is: me and the four or five people who were in on the structural delivery of this endeavour with me. We were the other tribe.We didn't stand a chance, you see?And I didn't pick up on that, and I didn't cast it accordingly and employ that, instead. I employed the conceit that I insisted was manifest and mobilized in the thing, instead of the manifest dilemma, which is that everybody who came knew what a wedding was, and me and four or five other people were yet to know if this could be one. That was the tribal difference, if you [00:39:00] will.So, it was kind of invisible, wasn't it? Even to me at the time. Or, I say, maybe especially to me at the time. And so, things often went the way they went, which was for however much fascination and willingness to consider that there might have been in the room, there was quite a bit more either flat affect and kind of lack of real fascination, or curiosity, or sometimes downright hostility and pushback. Yeah.So, all of that comes from the fact that I didn't credit as thoroughly as I should have done, the persistence in Anglo-North America of a kind of generic sameness that turned out to be what most people came here ancestrally to become. "Starting again" is recipe for culture [00:40:00] loss of a catastrophic order. The fantasy of starting again. Right?And we've talked about that in your podcast, and you and I have talked about it privately, apropos of your own family and everybody's sitting in this room knows what I'm talking about. And when does this show up? Does it show up, oh, when you're walking down the street? Does it show up when you're on the mountaintop? Does it show up in your peak experiences? And the answer is "maybe." It probably shows up most emphatically in those times when you have a feeling that something special is supposed to be so, and all you can get from the "supposed to" is the allegation of specialness.Audience: Mm-hmm.Stephen: And then, you look around in the context of matrimony and you see a kind of febral, kind of strained, the famous bridezilla stuff, all of that stuff. [00:41:00] You saw it in the hospitality industry, no doubt. You know, the kind of mania for perfection, as if perfection constitutes culture. Right? With every detail checked off in the checkbox, that's culture. You know, as if everything goes off without a hitch and there's no guffaws. And in fact, anybody could reasonably make the case, "Where do you think culture appears when the script finally goes f*****g sideways?" That's when. And when you find out what you're capable of, ceremonially.And generally speaking, I think most people discovered that their ceremonial illiteracy bordered on the bottomless.That's when you find out. Hmm.Chris: Wow.Stephen: Yeah. And that's why people, you know, in speech time, they reach in there and get that piece of paper, and just look at it. Mm-hmm. They don't even look up, terrified that they're gonna go off script for a minute as [00:42:00] if the Gods of Matrimony are a scripted proposition.Chris: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Thank you for sharing that with us, that degree of deep reflection and humility that I'm sure comes with it.Stephen: Mea Culpa, baby. Yeah, I was, I got that one totally wrong. Mm-hmm. And I didn't know it at the time. Meanwhile, like, how much can you transgress and have the consequences of doing so like spill out across the floor like a broken thermometer's mercury and not wise up.But of course, I was as driven as anybody. I was as driven to see if I could come through with what I promised to do the year before. And keeping your promise can make you into a maniac.Audience: Hmm hmm.Chris: But I imagine that, you [00:43:00] know, you wouldn't have been able to see that even years later if you didn't say yes in the first place.Stephen: Oh, yeah. Yeah. And I wouldn't have been able to make the errors.Chris: Right.Stephen: Right. Yeah. I mean, as errors go, this is not a mortal sin. Right, right. And you could chalk it up to being a legitimate miscalculation. Well, so? All I'm saying is, it turns out I was there too, and it turns out, even though I was allegedly the circus master of the enterprise, I wasn't free and clear of the things we were all contending with, the kind of mortality and sort of cultural ricketiness that were all heirs to. That's how I translated it, as it turns out.So, PS there was a moment, [00:44:00] which I don't remember which setting it was now, but there was a moment when the "maybe we'll see if she becomes a bride" bride's mother slid up to me during the course of the proceedings, and in a kind of stage whisper more or less hissed me as follows."Is this a real wedding?"I mean, that's not a question. Not in that setting, obviously not. That is an accusation. Right. And a withering one at that. And there was a tremendous amount of throw-down involved.So, was it? I mean, what we do know is that she did not go to any of the weddings [00:45:00] that she was thinking of at the time, and go to the front of the room where the celebrant is austerely standing there with the book, or the script, or the well-intentioned, or the self-penned vows and never hissed at him or her, "is this a real wedding?"Never once did she do that. We know that.Right.And I think we know why. But she was fairly persuaded she knew what a real wedding was. And all she was really persuaded by was the poverty of the weddings that she'd attended before that one. Well, I was as informed in that respect as she was, wasn't I? I just probably hadn't gone to as many reprobate weddings as she had, so she had more to deal with than I did, even though I was in the position of the line of fire.And I didn't respond too well to the question, I have to say. At the moment, I was rather combative. But I mean, you try to do [00:46:00] what I tried to do and not have a degree of fierceness to go along with your discernment, you know, just to see if you can drag this carcass across the threshold. Anyway, that happened too.Chris: Wow. Yeah. Dominant culture of North America.Stephen: Heard of it.Chris: Yeah. Well, in Matrimony, there's quite a bit in which you write about hospitality and radical hospitality. And I wanted to move in that direction a little bit, because in terms of these kind of marketplace rituals or ceremonies that you were mentioning you know, it's something that we might wonder, I think, as you have, how did it come to be this [00:47:00] way?And so I'd like to, if I can once again, quote from matrimony in which you speak to the etymology of hospitality. And so for those interested on page 88,"the word hospitality comes from hospitaller, meaning 'one who cares for the afflicted, the infirm, the needy.' There's that thread of our misgivings about being on the receiving end of hospitality. Pull on it. For the written history of the word, at least, it has meant, 'being on the receiving end of a kind of care you'd rather not need.'"End quote.Stephen: That's so great. I mean, before you go on with the quote. It's so great to know that the word, unexamined, just kind of leaks upside, doesn't it? Hospitality, I mean, nobody goes "Hospitality, ew." [00:48:00] And then, if you just quietly do the obvious math to yourself, there's so much awkwardness around hospitality.This awkwardness must have an origin, have a home. There must be some misgiving that goes along with the giving of hospitality, mustn't there be? How else to understand where that kind of ickiness is to be found. Right? And it turns out that the etymology is giving you the beginnings of a way of figuring it out what it is that you're on the receiving end of - a kind of succor that you wish you didn't need, which is why it's the root word for "hospital."Chris: Hmm hmm. Wow.Audience: Hmm.Chris: May I repeat that sentence please? Once more."For the written history of the word, at least, it has meant, [00:49:00] 'being on the receiving end of a kind of care you'd rather not need.'"And so this last part hits home for me as I imagine it does for many.And it feels like the orthodoxy of hospitality in our time is one based not only in transaction, but in debt. And if you offer hospitality to me, then I owe you hospitality.Stephen: Right.Chris: I'm indebted to you. And we are taught, in our time, that the worst thing to be in is in debt.Stephen: Right?Chris: And so people refuse both the desire to give as well as the learning skill of receiving. And this is continuing on page 88 now."But there's mystery afoot with this word. In its old Latin form, hospice meant both 'host' and 'guest.'"Stephen: Amazing. One. Either one, This is absolutely amazing. We're fairly sure that there's a [00:50:00] acres of difference between the giver of hospitality and the receiver that the repertoire is entirely different, that the skew between them is almost insurmountable, that they're not interchangeable in any way. But the history of the word immediately says, "really?" The history of the word, without question, says that "host" and "guest" are virtually the same, sitting in different places, being different people, more or less joined at the hip. I'll say more, but you go ahead with what you were gonna do. Sure.Chris: "In it's proto Indo-European origins, hospitality and hospice is a compound word: gosh + pot. And it meant something like [00:51:00] 'stranger/guest/host + powerful Lord.'It is amazing to me that ancestrally, the old word for guest, host, and stranger were all the same word. Potent ceremonial business, this is. In those days, the server and the serve were partners in something mysterious. This could be confusing, but only if you think of guest, host, and stranger as fixed identities.If you think of them as functions, as verbs, the confusion softens and begins to clear. The word hospice in its ancient root is telling us that each of the people gathered together in hospitality is bound to the others by formal etiquette, yes, but the bond is transacted through a subtle scheme of graces.Hospitality, it tells us, is a web of longing and belonging that binds people for a time, some hithereto unknown to each other is a clutch of mutually-binding elegances, you could say. In its ancient practice, [00:52:00] hospitality was a covenant. According to that accord, however we were with each other. That was how the Gods would be with us. We learn our hospitality by being on the receiving end of Godly administration. That's what giving thanks for members. We proceed with our kin in imitation of that example and in gratitude for it."Mm-hmm.And so today, among "secular" people, with the Gods ignored, this old-time hospitality seems endangered, if not fugitive. I'm curious how you imagine that this rupture arose, the ones that separated and commercialized the radical relationships between hosts and guests, that turned them from verbs to nouns and something like strangers to marketplace functions.[00:53:00]Stephen: Well, of course this is a huge question you've asked, and I'll see if I can unhuge it a bit.Chris: Uhhuh.Stephen: Let's go right to the heart of what happened. Just no preliminaries, just right to it.So, to underscore again, the beauty of the etymology. I've told you over and over again, the words will not fail you. And this is just a shining example, isn't it? That the fraternization is a matter of ceremonial alacrity that the affiliation between host and guest, which makes them partners in something, that something is the [00:54:00] evocation of a third thing that's neither one of them. It's the thing they've lent themselves to by virtue of submitting to being either a host or a guest. One.Two. You could say that in circumstances of high culture or highly-functioning culture, one of the principle attributes of that culture is that the fundament of its understanding, is that only with the advent of the stranger in their midst that the best of them comes forward.Okay, follow that. Yeah.So, this is a little counterintuitive for those of us who don't come from such places. We imagine that the advent of strangers in the midst of the people I'm describing would be an occasion where people hide their [00:55:00] best stuff away until the stranger disappears, and upon the disappearance of the stranger, the good stuff comes out again.You know?So, I'm just remembering just now, there's a moment in the New Testament where Jesus says something about the best wine and he's coming from exactly this page that we're talking about - not the page in the book, but this understanding. He said, you know, "serve your best wine first," unlike the standard, that prevails, right?So again, what a stranger does in real culture is call upon the cultural treasure of the host's culture, and provides the opportunity for that to come forward, right? By which you can understand... Let's say for simplicity's sake, there's two kinds of hospitality. There's probably all kinds of gradations, [00:56:00] but for the purposes of responding to what you've asked, there's two.One of them is based on kinship. Okay? So, family meal. So, everybody knows whose place is whose around the table, or it doesn't matter - you sit wherever you want. Or, when we're together, we speak shorthand. That's the shorthand of familiarity and affinity, right?Everybody knows what everybody's talking about. A lot of things get half-said or less, isn't it? And there's a certain fineness, isn't it? That comes with that kind of affinity. Of course, there is, and I'm not diminishing it at all. I'm just characterizing it as being of a certain frequency or calibre or charge. And the charge is that it trades on familiarity. It requires that. There's that kind of hospitality."Oh, sit wherever you want."Remember this one?[00:57:00]"We don't stand on ceremony here.""Oh, you're one of the family now." I just got here. What, what?But, of course, you can hear in the protestations the understanding, in that circumstance, that formality is an enemy to feeling good in this moment, isn't it? It feels stiff and starched and uncalled for or worse.It feels imported from elsewhere. It doesn't feel friendly. So, I'm giving you now beginnings of a differentiation between how cultures who really function as cultures understand what it means to be hospitable and what often prevails today, trading is a kind of low-grade warfare conducted against the strangeness of the stranger.The whole purpose of treating somebody like their family is to mitigate, and finally neutralize their [00:58:00] strangeness, so that for the purposes of the few hours in front of us all, there are no strangers here. Right? Okay.Then there's another kind, and intuitively you can feel what I'm saying. You've been there, you know exactly what I mean.There's another kind of circumstance where the etiquette that prevails is almost more emphatic, more tangible to you than the familiar one. That's the one where your mother or your weird aunt or whoever she might be, brings out certain kind of stuff that doesn't come out every day. And maybe you sit in a room that you don't often sit in. And maybe what gets cooked is stuff you haven't seen in a long time. And some part of you might be thinking, "What the hell is all this about?" And the answer is: it's about that guy in the [00:59:00] corner that you don't know.And your own ancestral culture told acres of stories whose central purpose was to convey to outsiders their understanding of what hospitality was. That is fundamentally what The Iliad and The Odyssey are often returning to and returning to and returning to.They even had a word for the ending of the formal hospitality that accrued, that arose around the care and treatment of strangers. It was called pomp or pompe, from which we get the word "pompous." And you think about what the word "pompous" means today.It means "nose in the air," doesn't it? Mm-hmm. It means "thinks really highly of oneself," isn't it? And it means "useless, encumbering, kind of [01:00:00] artificial kind of going through the motions stuff with a kind of aggrandizement for fun." That's what "pompous" means. Well, the people who gave us the word didn't mean that at all. This word was the word they used to describe the particular moment of hospitality when it was time for the stranger to leave.And when it was mutually acknowledged that the time for hospitality has come to an end, and the final act of hospitality is to accompany the stranger out of the house, out of the compound, out into the street, and provision them accordingly, and wish them well, and as is oftentimes practiced around here, standing in the street and waving them long after they disappear from view.This is pompous. This is what it actually means. Pretty frigging cool when you get corrected once in a while, isn't it? [01:01:00] Yeah.So, as I said, to be simplistic about it, there's at least a couple of kinds, and one of them treasures the advent of the stranger, understanding it to be the detonation point for the most elegant part of us to come forward.Now, those of us who don't come from such a place, we're just bamboozled and Shanghai'ed by the notion of formality, which we kind of eschew. You don't like formality when it comes to celebration, as if these two things are hostile, one to the other. But I'd like you to consider the real possibility that formality is grace under pressure, and that formality is there to give you a repertoire of response that rescues you from the gross limitations of your autobiography.[01:02:00]Next question. I mean, that's the beginning.Chris: Absolutely. Absolutely. Mm-hmm. Thank you once again, Stephen. So alongside the term or concept of "pompe," in which the the guest or stranger was led out of the house or to the entrance of the village, there was also the consideration around the enforcement of hospitality, which you write about in the book. And you write that"the enforcement of hospitality runs the palpable risk of violating or undoing the cultural value it is there to advocate for. Forcing people to share their good fortune with the less fortunate stretches, to the point of undoing the generosity of spirit that the culture holds dear. Enforcement of hospitality is a sign of the eclipse of hospitality, typically spawned by insecurity, contracted self-definition, and the darkening of the [01:03:00] stranger at the door.Instead, such places and times are more likely to encourage the practice of hospitality in subtle generous ways, often by generously treating the ungenerous."And so there seems to be a need for limits placed on hospitality, in terms of the "pompe," the maximum three days in which a stranger can be given hospitality, and concurrently a need to resist enforcing hospitality. This seems like a kind of high-wire act that hospitable cultures have to balance in order to recognize and realize an honorable way of being with a stranger. And so I'm wondering if you could speak to the possibility of how these limits might be practiced without being enforced. What might that look like in a culture that engages with, with such limits, but without prohibitions?Stephen: Mm-hmm. That's a very good question. [01:04:00] Well, I think your previous question was what happened? I think, in a nutshell, and I didn't really answer that, so maybe see how I can use this question to answer the one that you asked before: what happened? So, there's no doubt in my mind that something happened that it's kind of demonstrable, if only with the benefit of hindsight.Audience: Right.Stephen: Or we can feel our way around the edges of the absence of the goneness of that thing that gives us some feel for the original shape of that thing.So you could say I'm trafficking in "ideals," here, and after a fashion, maybe, yeah. But the notion of "ideals," when it's used in this slanderous way suggests that "it was never like that."Chris: Mm-hmm.Stephen: And I suggest to you it's been like that in a lot of places, and there's a lot of places where it's still like that, although globalization [01:05:00] may be the coup de grâce performed upon this capacity. Okay. But anyway.Okay. So what happened? Well, you see in the circumstance that I described, apropos of the stranger, the stranger is in on it. The stranger's principle responsibility is to be the vector for this sort of grandiose generosity coming forward, and to experience that in a burdensome and unreciprocated fashion, until you realize that their willingness to do that is their reciprocity. Everybody doesn't get to do everything at once. You can't give and receive at the same time. You know what that's called? "Secret Santa at school," isn't it?That's where nobody owes nobody nothing at the end. That's what we're all after. I mean, one of your questions, you know, pointed to that, that there's a kind of, [01:06:00] what do you call that, teeter-totter balance between what people did for each other and what they received for each other. Right. And nobody feels slighted in any way, perfect balance, et cetera.Well, the circumstance here has nothing of the kind going with it. The circumstance we're describing now is one in which the hospitality is clearly unequal in terms of who's eating whose food, for example, in terms of the absolutely frustrated notion of reciprocity, that in fact you undo your end of the hospitality by trying to pay back, or give back, or pay at all, or break even, or not feel the burden of "God, you've been on the take for fricking hours here now." And if you really look in the face of the host, I mean, they're just getting started and you can't, you can't take it anymore.[01:07:00]So, one of the ways that we contend with this is through habits of speech. So, if somebody comes around with seconds. They say, "would you like a little more?"And you say, "I'm good. I'm good. I'm good." You see, "I'm good" is code for what? "F**k off." That's what it's code for. It's a little strong. It's a little strong. What I mean is, when "I'm good" comes to town, it means I don't need you and what you have. Good God, you're not there because you need it you knucklehead. You're there because they need it, because their culture needs an opportunity to remember itself. Right?Okay. So what happened? Because you're making it sound like a pretty good thing, really. Like who would say, "I think we've had enough of this hospitality thing, don't you? Let's try, oh, [01:08:00] keeping our s**t to ourselves. That sounds like a good alternative. Let's give it a week or two, see how it rolls." Never happened. Nobody decided to do this - this change, I don't think. I think the change happened, and sometime long after people realized that the change had had taken place. And it's very simple. The change, I think, went something like this.As long as the guest is in on it, there's a shared and mutually-held understanding that doesn't make them the same. It makes them to use the quote from the book "partners," okay, with different tasks to bring this thing to light, to make it so. What does that require? A mutually-held understanding in vivo as it's happening, what it is.Okay. [01:09:00] So, that the stranger who's not part of the host culture... sorry, let me say this differently.The culture of the stranger has made the culture of the host available to the stranger no matter how personally adept he or she may be at receiving. Did you follow that?Audience: A little.Stephen: Okay. Say it again?Audience: Yes, please.Stephen: Okay. The acculturation, the cultured sophistication of the stranger is at work in his or her strangerhood. Okay. He or she's not at home, but their cultural training helps them understand what their obligations are in terms of this arrangement we've been describing here.Okay, so I think the rupture takes place [01:10:00] when the culturation of one side or the other fails to make the other discernible to the one.One more time?When something happens whereby the acculturation of one of the partners makes the identity, the presence, and the valence of the other one untranslatable. Untranslatable.I could give you an example from what I call " the etiquette of trade," or the... what was the word? Not etiquette. What's the other word?Chris: The covenant?Stephen: Okay, " covenant of trade" we'll call it. So, imagine that people are sitting across from each other, two partners in a trade. Okay? [01:11:00] Imagine that they have one thing to sell or move or exchange and somebody has something else.How does this work? Not "what are the mechanics?" That can be another discussion, but, if this works, how does it work? Not "how does it happen?" How does it actually achieve what they're after? Maybe it's something like this.I have this pottery, and even though you're not a potter, but somebody in your extended family back home was, and you watched what they went through to make a fricking pot, okay?You watched how their hands seized up, because the clay leached all the moisture out of the hands. You distinctly remember that - how the old lady's hands looked cracked and worn, and so from the work of making vessels of hospitality, okay? [01:12:00] It doesn't matter that you didn't make it yourself. The point is you recognize in the item something we could call "cultural patrimony."You recognize the deep-runningness of the culture opposite you as manifest and embodied in this item for trade. Okay? So, the person doesn't have to "sell you" because your cultural sophistication makes this pot on the other side available to you for the deeply venerable thing that it is. Follow what I'm saying?Okay. So, you know what I'm gonna say next? When something happens, the items across from you cease to speak, cease to have their stories come along with them, cease to be available. There's something about your cultural atrophy that you project onto the [01:13:00] item that you don't recognize.You don't recognize it's valence, it's proprieties, it's value, it's deep-running worth and so on. Something happened, okay? And because you're not making your own stuff back home or any part of it. And so now, when you're in a circumstance like this and you're just trying to get this pot, but you know nothing about it, then the enterprise becomes, "Okay, so what do you have to part with to obtain the pot?"And the next thing is, you pretend you're not interested in obtaining the pot to obtain the pot. That becomes part of the deal. And then, the person on the making end feels the deep running slight of your disinterest, or your vague involvement in the proceedings, or maybe the worst: when it's not things you're going back and forth with, but there's a third thing called money, which nobody makes, [01:14:00] which you're not reminded of your grandma or anyone else's with the money. And then, money becomes the ghost of the original understanding of the cultural patrimony that sat between you. That's what happened, I'm fairly sure: the advent, the estrangement that comes with the stranger, instead of the opportunity to be your cultural best when the stranger comes.And then of course, it bleeds through all kinds of transactions beyond the "obvious material ones." So, it's a rupture in translatability, isn't it?Chris: You understand this to happen or have happened historically, culturally, et cetera, with matrimony as well?Stephen: Oh, absolutely. Yeah.Yeah. This is why, for example, things like the fetishization of virginity.Audience: Mm-hmm. [01:15:00]Stephen: I think it's traceable directly to what we're talking about. How so? Oh, this is a whole other long thing, but the very short version would be this.Do you really believe that through all of human history until the recent liberation, that people have forever fetishized the virginity of a young woman and jealously defended it, the "men" in particular, and that it became a commodity to trade back and forth in, and that it had to be prodded and poked at to determine its intactness? And this was deemed to be, you know, honourable behavior?Do you really think that's the people you come from, that they would've do that to the most cherished of their [01:16:00] own, barely pubescent girls? Come on now. I'm not saying it didn't happen and doesn't still happen. I'm not saying that. I'm saying, God almighty, something happened for that to be so.And I'm trying to allude to you now what I think took place. Then all of a sudden, the hymen takes the place of the pottery, doesn't it? And it becomes universally translatable. Doesn't it? It becomes a kind of a ghosted artifact of a culturally-intact time. It's as close as you can get.Hence, this allegation of its purity, or the association with purity, and so on. [01:17:00] I mean, there's lots to say, but that gives you a feel for what might have happened there.Chris: Thank you, Stephen. Thank you for being so generous with your considerations here.Stephen: You see why I had to write a book, eh?Audience: Mm-hmm.Stephen: There was too much bouncing around. Like I had to just keep track of my own thoughts on the matter.But can you imagine all of this at play in the year, oh, I don't know, 2022, trying to put into motion a redemptive passion play called "matrimony," with all of this at play? Not with all of this in my mind, but with all of this actually disfiguring the anticipation of the proceedings for the people who came.Can you imagine? Can you imagine trying to pull it off, and [01:18:00] contending overtly with all these things and trying to make room for them in a moment that's supposed to be allegedly - get ready for it - happy.I should have raised my rates on the first day, trying to pull that off.But anyway.Okay, you go now,Chris: Maybe now you'll have the opportunity.Stephen: No, man. No. I'm out of the running for that. "Pompe" has come and come and gone. Mm.Chris: So, in matrimony, Stephen, you write that"the brevity, the brevity of modern ceremonies is really there to make sure that nothing happens, nothing of substance, nothing of consequence, no alchemy, no mystery, no crazy other world stuff. That overreach there in its scripted heart tells me that deep in the rayon-wrapped bosom of that special day, the modern wedding is scared [01:19:00] silly of something happening. That's because it has an ages-old abandoned memory of a time when a wedding was a place where the Gods came around, where human testing and trying and making was at hand, when the dead lingered in the wings awaiting their turn to testify and inveigh."Gorgeous. Gorgeous.Audience: Mm-hmm.Chris: And so I'm curious ifStephen: "Rayon-wrapped bosom." That's not, that's not shabby.Chris: "Rayon-wrapped bosom of that special day." Yeah.So, I'm curious do you think the more-than-human world practices matrimony, and if so, what, if anything, might you have learned about matrimony from the more-than-human world?Stephen: I would say the reverse. I would say, we practice the more-than-human world in matrimony, not that the more-than-human world practices matrimony. We practice them, [01:20:00] matrimonially.Next. Okay. Or no? I just gonna say that, that's pretty good.Well, where do we get our best stuff from? Let's just wonder that. Do we get our best stuff from being our best? Well, where does that come from? And this is a bit of a barbershop mirrors situation here, isn't it? To, to back, back, back, back.If you're thinking of time, you can kind of get lost in that generation before, or before, before, before. And it starts to sound like one of them biblical genealogies. But if you think of it as sort of the flash point of multiple presences, if you think of it that way, then you come to [01:21:00] credit the real possibility that your best stuff comes from you being remembered by those who came before you.Audience: Hmm.Stephen: Now just let that sit for a second, because what I just said is logically-incompatible.Okay? You're being remembered by people who came before you. That's not supposed to work. It doesn't work that way. Right?"Anticipated," maybe, but "remembered?" How? Well, if you credit the possibility of multiple beginnings, that's how. Okay. I'm saying that your best stuff, your best thoughts, not the most noble necessarily. I would mean the most timely, [01:22:00] the ones that seem most needed, suddenly.You could take credit and sure. Why, why not? Because ostensibly, it arrives here through you, but if you're frank with yourself, you know that you didn't do that on command, right? I mean, you could say, I just thought of it, but you know in your heart that it was thought of and came to you.I don't think there's any difference between saying that and saying you were thought of.Audience: Mm-hmm.Stephen: So, that's what I think the rudiments of old-order matrimony are. They are old people and their benefactors in the food chain and spiritually speaking. Old people and their benefactors, the best part of them [01:23:00] willed to us, entrusted and willed to us. So, when you are willing to enter into the notion that old-order matrimony is older than you, older than your feelings for the other person, older than your love, and your commitment, and your willingness to make the vows and all that stuff, then you're crediting the possibility that your love is not the beginning of anything.You see. Your love is the advent of something, and I use that word deliberately in its Christian notion, right? It's the oncomingness, the eruption into the present day of something, which turns out to be hugely needed and deeply unsuspected at the same time.I used to ask in the school, "can you [01:24:00] have a memory of something you have no lived experience of?" I think that's what the best part of you is. I'm not saying the rest of you is shite. I'm not saying that. You could say that, but I am saying that when I say "the best part of you," that needs a lot of translating, doesn't it?But the gist of it is that the best part of you is entrusted to you. It's not your creation, it's your burden, your obligation, your best chance to get it right. And that's who we are to those who came before us. We are their chance to get it right, and matrimony is one of the places where you practice the gentle art of getting it right.[01:25:00] Another decent reason to write a book.Chris: So, gorgeous. Wow. Thank you Stephen. I might have one more question.Stephen: Okay. I might have one more answer. Let's see.Chris: Alright. Would I be able to ask if dear Nathalie Roy could join us up here alongside your good man.So, returning to Matrimony: Ritual, Culture and the Heart's Work. On page 94, [01:26:00] Stephen, you write that"hospitality of the radical kind is
We're back with another AFTN Soccer Show packed full of Vancouver Whitecaps, Major League Soccer, Canadian Championship, and Canadian Premier League football chat and interviews. What a week it's been for Vancouver and BC soccer. The Whitecaps and Vancouver FC of Langley set up a first ever meeting between the two teams in next week's Canadian Championship final after semi-final wins over Forge and Ottawa respectively. We chat about the games and the match-up to come, the showcase of soccer in the province, and hear some thoughts from Whitecaps head coach Jesper Sorensen and VFC's Martin Nash and Matteo Campagna. Heading back to league business, the Whitecaps went to Kansas City at the weekend and left with a comfortable victory that broke a multitude of club records along the way and left them controlling their own destinies in the race for first place in the MLS West and the Supporters' Shield. We chat with MLS Apple TV analyst Devon Kerr about the match and the season run-in for the 'Caps. We also chat with one of the (many) standout players for the Whitecaps this year, Uruguayan centre-back Mathias Laborda, about the season so far, what's to come, the Canadian Championship final, life in Vancouver, and find out if he fancies a chocolate digestive. Plus we talk about CPL side Pacific FC being put up for sale this week and the unsavoury public spat with the City of Langford that followed, and music-wise, Hazel O'Connor continues her residency as our Album of the Month, we've Britpop songs from Smaller and Pulp, and a Dutch band features in Wavelength. Here's the rundown for the main segments from the episode: 01.26: Intro - a little bit of politics, freedom of speech, 3I/Atlas & the end of days 14.17: It's an all-BC Canadian Championship final! 72.56: Whitecaps control own destiny after record breaking win in KC 97.25: Mathias Laborda interview 108.00: Anyone Fancy A Chocolate Digestive? - Mathias Laborda 113.26: Interview with MLS Apple TV analyst Devon Kerr 142.55: Pacific FC up for sale and in public spat with the City of Langford 171.30: Wavelength - The Nits - J.O.S. Days
Leila Rahimi, Marshall Harris and Mark Grote examined the Bears' 19-play touchdown drive in the third quarter Sunday that helped them seal their 31-14 win against the Cowboys.
Mike and Bobby spoke to a WWL listener about Juwan Johnson, Chris Olave, and the Saints' poor start.
HOW THE 49ERS WON: 2 straight DOMINANT draft classes | Massive CMC, Bryce Huff trades Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Mike and Bobby spoke to a WWL listener about Juwan Johnson, Chris Olave, and the Saints' poor start.
The Indianapolis Colts improved to 3-0 after a dominant road win against the Tennessee Titans. Matt Adams looks at notable developments from the game, including Kenny Moore's return TD, Jonathan Taylor's backbreaking run and Daniel Jones' continued elevated play.
Ryan talks all things Week 3 as the Commanders move to 2-1, following a 41-24 win over the Raiders. He talks Marcus Mariota, LG Chris Paul, the ground game, rookie Jaylin Lane, and much more. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Rebel Grove's Ben Garrett and Brad Logan are LIVE with full postgame reaction after Ole Miss' dominant, 45-10 win over Tulane on Saturday. The Rebels improved to 4-0 with SEC rival LSU on deck next week.Our Sponsors:* Check out Underdog Fantasy and use my code CHAMPIONS for a great deal: https://underdogfantasy.comAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy
@JeffreyTheGreek is joined by talented youngster Zach Browning @ZachBrowning17 to discuss all B1G games from this weekend, with a special emphasis on the DOMINANT performance by his Indiana Hoosiers. Take a Listen! #AskForAmador Pod Time Stamps: 02:00 - Fri Night 10:00 - Sat Early 16:00 - Sat PM 33:00 - Sat Evening 35:00 - Sat Night 41:00 - B1G. Game. Of. DA WEEK.
Chapters 00:00 Introduction 01:08 UVA's Performance Against Stanford 01:53 Season Overview and Offensive Struggles 03:31 Offensive Statistics and Improvements 05:27 Praise for the Offensive Coordinator 06:53 Defensive Performance and Challenges 08:23 Game Attendance and Fan Engagement 09:40 Defensive Statistics and Analysis 11:13 Quarterback Performance and Mobility 19:40 Offensive Playmakers and Strategy 22:33 Defensive Issues and Areas for Improvement 23:26 Assessing Secondary Play Performance 31:05 Identifying Key Defensive Issues 34:06 Looking Ahead to Florida State Matchup 41:56 Reflections on Team Performance and Future Goals Sponsored By: Fan Duel https://sportsbook.fanduel.com/ Able Insurance www.ableinsurance.net Follow The Ball Hawk Show: Bleav Network, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and other podcasts platforms Ahmad Hawkins Website: http://www.ahmadhawkins.com Follow on X: @IAmBallHawk Instagram: iamballhawk Facebook: Ahmad Hawkins Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit psgtalk.substack.com and subscribe.Joining me on the latest Ensemble PSG Podcast is long-time contributor, Marc Damon. We talk about PSG's convincing win over Atalanta BC, who should take penalties for the club, recent remarks from Luis Campos, and the Ballon d'Or.
In this meandering conversation, Elle and Vee blend kink, parenting, and intimacy into one candid, sex-positive chat. They dive into everything from pregnancy porn and the risks of recording intimate videos to the awkwardness of moms finding sexy photos. They explore sex-positive parenting, New Relationship Energy (NRE), and the intensity of Dominant/submissive dynamics—discussing what makes a good Dom, what subs and tops truly get out of play, and why negotiation is key. Seasons of life: Have Vee and Elle switched places sexually?! (00:35)Pregnancy gang bang video. (3:19)Dangers of recording videos. Repercussions of having home porn. (5:24)Sexy photos discovered by mom. (10:06)Sex-positive parenting: Speaking about sex with your mother as an adult, and having the sex talk with your kids. (14:47)NRE: New Relationship Energy. How Dominant/Submissive dynamics can create an intense connection and attachment quickly. (23:39)“Sub space feels like love and care.” (30:04)Characteristics of a good dom. Unbound by Kasia Urbaniak. (31:56)What do doms get out of topping? (34:05)What do subs get out of bottoming? (37:16)Negotiations before a D/S scene. (40:40)Ice bath vs Impact Play. (44:16) Where to find us, and how you can support us:Instagram: @girlsgonedeeppod Merch: girlsgonedeep.com/shop Woo More Play Affiliate Link: Support us while you shop! WHOREible Life: Get 10% off your deck with code GONEDEEP at whoreiblelife.com Instagram: @wlthegameContact: girlsgonedeep@gmail.com © 2025 GGD Alchemy, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
The No. 4 Miami Hurricanes dominated South Florida on Saturday en route to a 49-12 victory. Did the win look as good when rewatching the game tape? InsideTheU's David Lake and Gaby Urrutia review their thoughts on Miami's performance from the USF game. Who impressed us most? Have we changed our thoughts on any areas of the team in general? Which players are stepping up? Lake and Urrutia share their takes and also peek ahead to this week's rivalry match-up against Florida. Enjoy the show. Support our sponsors at Through The Smoke: - Join Canes Connection today at CanesConnection.com! - If you have been injured in a slip and fall, boating accident, trucking accident, Uber/Lyft accident, or car accident, Nick Mucerino is the personal injury attorney you should contact at 561-960-9870 or visit the website FLInjury.Law. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Packers fans are buzzing after a commanding 27-18 victory over the Washington Commanders, where the Green Bay defense turned Jayden Daniels into a non-factor with just 17 scrambling yards. Callers lit up the lines with excitement over the pass rush frenzy and Jordan Love's sharp 292-yard, two-touchdown performance, but frustrations boiled over refs' missed calls and sloppy penalties. This After Dark episode captures the raw thrill of a team looking unstoppable early in the season. Dominant defense steals the show: Micah Parsons-like get-offs, Devonte Wyatt's pressure surge, and Keisean Nixon's five pass breakups highlight the havoc. Offense shines amid concerns: Tucker Kraft's 126-yard explosion and Love's deep accuracy, but Jayden Reed's injury and blitz-heavy pressure raise questions. Caller hot takes: From Super Bowl dreams to betting heartbreaks and special teams gripes, fans debate if this squad can sustain the fire. Refs and penalties rant: Missed fouls on holds and personal fouls leave a bad taste, with suggestions for better timeout tech. This episode is brought to you by PrizePicks! Use code PACKDADDY and visit https://prizepicks.onelink.me/LME0/PACKDADDY to get started with America's #1 fantasy sports app. Subscribe, rate, and review to keep the After Dark vibes rolling—share your takes on social media with #PackernetAfterDark. Tease: Next up, prepping for Cleveland after this mini-bye. To advertise on this podcast please email: ad-sales@libsyn.com Or go to: https://advertising.libsyn.com/packernetpodcast
Radio host on 680 the Fan in Atlanta - John Michaels - is the biggest Canes fan we know... he recaps the victory over USF and previews the UM vs UF game later this weekend.
Packers fans are buzzing after a commanding 27-18 victory over the Washington Commanders, where the Green Bay defense turned Jayden Daniels into a non-factor with just 17 scrambling yards. Callers lit up the lines with excitement over the pass rush frenzy and Jordan Love's sharp 292-yard, two-touchdown performance, but frustrations boiled over refs' missed calls and sloppy penalties. This After Dark episode captures the raw thrill of a team looking unstoppable early in the season. Dominant defense steals the show: Micah Parsons-like get-offs, Devonte Wyatt's pressure surge, and Keisean Nixon's five pass breakups highlight the havoc. Offense shines amid concerns: Tucker Kraft's 126-yard explosion and Love's deep accuracy, but Jayden Reed's injury and blitz-heavy pressure raise questions. Caller hot takes: From Super Bowl dreams to betting heartbreaks and special teams gripes, fans debate if this squad can sustain the fire. Refs and penalties rant: Missed fouls on holds and personal fouls leave a bad taste, with suggestions for better timeout tech. This episode is brought to you by PrizePicks! Use code PACKDADDY and visit https://prizepicks.onelink.me/LME0/PACKDADDY to get started with America's #1 fantasy sports app. Subscribe, rate, and review to keep the After Dark vibes rolling—share your takes on social media with #PackernetAfterDark. Tease: Next up, prepping for Cleveland after this mini-bye. To advertise on this podcast please email: ad-sales@libsyn.com Or go to: https://advertising.libsyn.com/packernetpodcast
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
