Latest / 21st Century Dating Decoded!™ / Speed Mingle Dating Slang of the Week: Stashing
Transcript
- Brad Peters: Confused by modern dating terms? Master the slang with speed mingle! Welcome to Twenty First Century Dating Decoded. I'm your host, and I am ⁓ really hyped to get into today's deep dive. Yes, welcome in everyone. I'm your co-host, and we have an incredibly loaded topic for you today. We really do. So I want to jump right into the speed mangled dating slang of the week, which is this concept of stashing. Stashing, yeah, it's a big one. Right. And our mission for this deep dive is to completely decode this phenomenon because I mean, if you look at the modern dating culture, it has basically embraced these raw, unfiltered desires, but we've completely abandoned like structure. ⁓ absolutely. Structure, boundaries, intentionality, it's all just out the window. Exactly. We are living in this era of uncertified dating, just the dark ages of endless text threads, ghosting, and ⁓ Don't even get me started on digital filter fatigue. Ugh, the expired digital filters on dating apps. It's a whole separate epidemic. It really is. And we're dealing with these totally outdated dating narratives. So we like to frame modern romance through what we call the relational portfolio. Right. Which essentially means viewing your dating life as a portfolio that actually requires strategy. You need genuine connection and ⁓ risk management rather than just passively swiping on apps. Spot on. Which brings us to this week's focus. Because stashing is, well, it's a massive risk in that portfolio. Usually if you get a medical diagnosis right, you have an x-ray, you see a broken bone, the doctor points at it, and boom, there's the problem. It's visible, it's clean. Exactly. But in modern romance, that x-ray machine is just utterly broken. We prioritize ambiguity over actual attachment. And the damage isn't always something you can point to. Sometimes the damage is literally about what is kept invisible. And that invisible damage is exactly what makes the current landscape so psychologically treacherous. We're looking at these behavioral trends where the dysfunction isn't necessarily at the core of the relationship, it's entirely at the parameters. Right. So let's define this for the listener, because stashing some people also call it pocketing, right? Yes, pocketing is the other term for it. Okay, so it's not an accident. It is this deliberate, highly calculated act of hiding a romantic partner from your broader social circle. Your family, your digital life, all of it. While at the exact same time maintaining a fully functioning, super intimate relationship behind closed doors. Which is the crazy part. Mm-hmm. And to really pin down what stashing is, I think we have to start by eliminating what it isn't. Right. Let's clear the deck because the dictionary of bad dating behavior is frankly depressing. It is long and depressing. So first off, sashing is not ghosting. Ghosting relies entirely on absence. It's that sudden Complete radio silence. It's the coward's exit. They just evaporate. Exactly. But stashing happens within an active ongoing connection. Right. And it's also not bread crumbing. ⁓ bread crumbing. Yeah. Where someone gives you just enough sporadic digital encouragement, you know, like a random text every three weeks or they drop a fire emoji on your store. So keep you on the bench as a backup option. But they never actually commit to seeing you. Right. There's no deep physical or emotional intimacy there. And we also have to separate stashing from a situationship. Because a situation ship is a mutual lack of labels. Both people kind of know they are in an undefined space. It might be messy, but it's mutual. Which is distinct from a newer term our sources bring up, which is ⁓ shrekking. Shreking, right. Yeah, which is intentionally misrepresenting a relationship to outsiders as being way worse or more casual than it actually is. So what makes stashing uniquely toxic? Compared to all of those is the false sense of security. The private relationship feels totally solid. You know, you might spend five nights a week together. You know their deepest fears. Right. The core of the apple looks completely healthy, but the skin of the apple is essentially poisonous. Okay, let's unpack this. Because stashing is sort of like having a VIP membership to an exclusive club, right? But you're only allowed to enter through the back alley. Late at night. Late at night. And you are absolutely forbidden from telling anyone you're a member. Like you get all the perks inside the building, but the second you step outside, the bouncer pretends he's never seen you in his life. The sources actually use a great term for this. They call it living in a shadow box. A shadow box. Yeah. You're trapped in this isolated space where the romance thrives, but your public existence is just zeroed out. Wow. And that shadow box, I mean, that has to require a massive amount of energy to maintain. ⁓ the compartmentalization is exhausting. Especially in our hyperconnected world where every meal and workout is broadcast to hundreds of people, keeping an entire human being hidden takes active daily management. So how does the stasher actually pull this off? How did they build these walls? It relies heavily on a concept the sources call plausible deniability. Plausible deniability, which is essentially a PR strategy for their single life. Exactly. They aggressively maintain this solo persona to signal continued availability to the outside world. And there are three specific behavioral patterns they use to achieve this: digital erasure, public avoidance, and the secret circle. Okay, let's dive deep into digital erasure first. Because, you know, in the 21st century, the absence of a digital footprint is not a neutral act. It's loud. Very loud. If someone documents everything, but you are nowhere to be found, that is a glaring, calculated omission. It's the active maintenance of a solitary narrative. Right. Like the sources bring up the scenario of a couple going on a romantic vacation. The stasher takes photos, but their Instagram grid or their stories only feature these sterile solo landscapes. Yes. The partner is carefully deliberately framed out of every single shot. Or it's a photo of two coffee cups, but they crop the table so it only shows one. It's literally erasing you. But it's not just about what they post, right? It's about how they react when the stashed partner tries to assert digital existence. That is where the pathology really shows itself. Because if you try to tag them in a photo or do any sort of soft launch online, the stasher panics. They get super defensive. Extremely defensive. They'll untag themselves, ask you to take the post down, or say something like, ⁓ I'm just a very private person online. Even if their feed is stuffed with photos of friends and coworkers. Exactly. They are actively erasing physical evidence of your influence on their life, which leads to the real world component, public avoidance. Because you can't just manage the digital perimeter, you have to manage the geographical perimeter too. Right. Public avoidance is the geographical enforcement of that shadow box. The stasher consistently plans dates in out of the way spots. They avoid their own neighborhood, their regular coffee shop. Basically anywhere they might cross paths with an acquaintance or an ex. It's like you're only allowed to date in a three town radius outside of where they actually live. Yes. But the real tell Is what happens when that geographical firewall fails. You know, life happens. You accidentally bump into their college buddy in the grocery store. This is the moment of truth. And what do do? They deploy the most dehumanizing tactic of all. The first name only introduction. ⁓ ouch. Hey man, crazy running into you. This is Sarah. Exactly. No context, no title. No, this is my partner. By stripping away the romantic identifier in real time. They instantly demote you to the status of a vague acquaintance. It neutralizes the threat instantly. And if the stashed partner tries to push back later, like, hey, why didn't you introduce me as your girlfriend? the stasher pivots to the third pillar, the secret circle. Yes, they fire up the excuses engine. The excuses engine, I love that term. It's designed to create permanent roadblocks to integration. They always have a logical reason for a delay, like My friends are super dramatic right now. I don't want to subject you to that. Or work is so stressful, let's just focus on us. Or the most manipulative one. I love that it's just the two of us right now. Let's keep this special, just for us. They completely reframe isolation as exclusivity. Okay. I am listening to this and I feel like I have to push back a bit. I want to play devil's advocate for the listener who might be feeling a little defensive right Okay. Lay it on me. We have data from the dating app Plenty of Fish and dating expert Rachel Dialto. Showing that forty-six point five percent of modern daters prefer to take new connections slowly. Right. So almost half the dating population actively wants to pace themselves. If I meet someone new, I don't necessarily want them meeting my mom or being plastered on my Instagram in week three. So isn't there a massive risk that we are pathologizing basic healthy privacy? How do we definitively separate a normal soft launch from an active stash? That is a very fair point, and the clinical distinction relies on a highly specific timeline. Yeah. Initial discretion is incredibly healthy early on. But clinical specialists provide a firm diagnostic metric, the six month mark. Okay, so zero to three months, it is totally acceptable to keep things contained while you figure out if you even like each other. Absolutely. Early dating requires an articulated boundary, but once a relationship crosses that half year threshold, the context completely shifts. Healthy discretion. mutates into pathological concealment. So if you're at six months of deep intimacy and there's no movement toward public integration. You are no longer taking it slow. You are engaging in a strategic effort to prevent the relationship from becoming real in the eyes of the community. It's an active avoidance of accountability. Taking it slow implies movement, just gradual movement. Stashing is standing completely still while hiding behind a curtain. That's a perfect way to put it. But to truly understand this, we can't just look at the timeline. We have to look under the hood at the psychological motivations. Why are they building the shadow box in the first place? Let's get into the why. Because the sources categorize these drivers into buckets that range from sheer vanity to incredibly complex survival tactics. We're looking at four main motivations. Keeping options open, aesthetic classism, avoidant attachment, and cultural shields. Let's start with the most cynical one. Keeping options open. By maintaining a single persona publicly, the stasher retains absolute freedom. They can flirt, stay on dating apps, or just pivot to a new partner without any of the social friction of a public breakup. Exactly. They want the emotional scaffolding of a relationship, the late night texts, the physical intimacy, but they demand the marketing profile of a highly available single person. They wanna have their cake and eat it in the dark, which ties directly into the second motivation aesthetic classism and the fear of judgment. Because we live in an era of intense personal branding. We do. And the Sources Cite author Erin Bunch on this, and her observation is just brutal. She notes that some statuers treat their partners like a human version of Candy Crush. ⁓ my gosh. Candy crush. Right. It's just a private source of dopamine. You pull out the app when you're bored, get a quick hit of comfort, and then you put it away in your pocket. You were never intended to be part of their real world integration. It completely reduces a complex human being to a consumable digital commodity. Aesthetic classism happens when a stasher hides a partner because they don't align with their tailored social media aesthetic or their perceived social status. Right. Maybe the partner dresses differently or works a blue collar job while the stasher is in the corporate world. The stasher's terrified their network will judge them. Okay, here's where it gets really interesting though. Because while keeping options open and aesthetic classism are rooted in manipulation, the sources point to motivations that are deeply embedded in the stasher's psychological wiring. Let's look at avoidant attachment. Yes. Avoidant attachment and relational claustrophobia. This shifts the motivation from malice to deep seated anxiety. For an avoidantly attached person, total relational integration feels like an existential threat. It feels like suffocation. So by keeping you completely separate from their friends and family, they are essentially building a firewall around their core identity. Precisely. They can enjoy the companionship, but if the relationship catches fire and burns down, the flames never reach their real life. you just quietly disappear. And their external world remains completely untouched. They're mitigating risk. But then there's a fourth motivation, and this one requires profound nuance because it flips the entire paradigm. The sources call it the cultural shield. And as we discuss this, we need to emphasize to a listener that we are looking at this complex issue impartially, strictly based on the material provided in our sources, like the platform Asian parents stories, We aren't endorsing these dynamics, just reporting on them. Right. Because in these highly specific contexts, stashing isn't about vanity or avoiding commitment. It's as a desperate survival tactic. In high spakes cultural or familial scenarios like interracial dating, stark religious differences, or super strict traditional expectations, a partner might be hidden to shield them from catastrophic familial fallout. The sources detail individuals hiding partners to protect the relationship from severe verbal abuse, racist hostility, Or the very real threat of being completely disowned or written out of the will. In these instances, the stashing is fueled entirely by fear. Not shame of the partner, but fear of a family's internalized prejudice or the immense pressure of a tight-knit community. The stasher is trying to delay an inevitable explosion. So for some, the partner is an accessory that doesn't match the digital outfit, but for others, stashing is like putting your relationship in the witness protection program to keep it safe. That is an incredibly apt analogy. But the tragedy is this. Even if the motive is purely protective, the psychological burden on the hidden partner remains exactly the same. The somatic damage is still being done. Which brings up a fascinating macro level question. How much has our hyper-visual culture intensified this? Fifty years ago, your private life was inherently private by default. You didn't have a mechanism to instantly announce your dating life to a thousand loose acquaintances? Right. But today The intentional omission of a partner feels so much heavier. It feels like an aggressive act of denial. Because social media has created a mandatory public ledger of our identities. When a significant partner is systematically erased from that ledger, it is no longer a neutral choice. It's a documented psychological phenomenon. Okay, so having established that the motivations can range from vanity to survival, how do we define the clinical boundaries? We throw words like privacy and secrecy around. As if they mean the same thing. But in relationship psychology, they're diametrically opposed. They operate on fundamentally different internal mechanics. And this brings us directly to relationship specialist Bruce Music's diagnostic framework. Let's break down Music's framework because privacy at its core is healthy, isn't it? It's not just healthy, it is a fundamental human right. Music defines privacy as the state of being apart from observation, motivated by individuation. Individuation. Let's spend some time on that because I think it's a concept that gets totally lost in the romanticized idea of finding your other half. ⁓ completely. To understand individuation, we have to look at developmental stages. You begin as the separate me two independent people. Then you fall in love and enter the romance stage. The classic honeymoon phase. You merge into the WE, you finish each other's sentences, share a single brain. Right. But biologically and psychologically. You cannot stay in that merged state permanently. If you try, you will experience severe relational claustrophobia. To mature, you have to transition to the power struggle stage. Where the goal is to become the individuated US, finding yourself again without losing the connection. Exactly. Privacy is the mechanism that allows you to process your own independent thoughts and maintain a distinct sense of self. And music brings in the paradox of attraction here, which is profound. Right. The premise is simple. We are not sexually attracted to ourselves, we are attracted to an other. Yes. If you stay completely merged, couples inevitably report feeling more like roommates or siblings than vital lovers. The otherness of your partner is the fuel of desire. Total boundaryless disclosure actually suffocates the spark. Privacy is the relational oxygen. So healthy privacy might be having separate hobbies, taking a solo trip, or just not sharing every single passing thought. Yes. The end goal of privacy is self-identity. Secrecy, on the other hand, is the act of keeping information hidden, and its motivation is never individuation. It's rooted entirely in shame or fear. Shame because you feel bad about what you're doing, or fear that revealing the truth will result in judgment or loss of control. Exactly. And music provides a diagnostic tool with three ways to spot a toxic secret. First, intentional hiding, a conscious decision to withhold data. Second, motivation. Driven purely by shame or fear. And third, the ultimate metric, the betrayal test. The betrayal test, meaning you ask yourself, if my partner were to discover this information entirely on their own, would they feel angry, hurt, or betrayed? If the honest answer is yes, then what you are holding is not privacy, it is a secret. A private bank account for hobbies is privacy. A secret Tinder account is secrecy. Taking time away to recharge is privacy, hiding your partner from your friends because you fear their judgment is a toxic secret. The sources outline four specific things music suggests you actually should keep hidden from your partner to maintain that mystery. Let's run through them. First, surprises. Obviously. Flying about a surprise party is healthy. Right. Second, other people's secrets. If your best friend confides in you, you don't betray their trust by telling your spouse. Third, Mundane private thoughts. You don't need to report every time you find a barista tractor. Yes, exactly. And then there is the fourth one, the gift wrapper tactic. ⁓ yes. The gift wrapper tactic. I am gonna push back incredibly hard on this one because on the surface it sounds absolutely wild. The advice here is to actively hide your naked body from your partner outside of sexual intimacy to maintain mystery. I know it sounds intense. It seems completely counterintuitive to building comfort. Can you unpack how physical concealment somehow greets closer connection? It requires a paradigm shift. It ties directly back to the paradox of attraction. The clinical theory suggests that if you spend all your shared domestic time lounging around unguarded, the physical form slowly loses its specialness. It shifts from erotic intimacy to mundane domesticity. Yes. The gift wrapper concept proposes that clothing hides what is inside, building unconscious anticipation. By ensuring your partner sees you naked, primarily in a sexual context, you preserve the mystery and the distinct otherness of your physical form. Okay, I see the logic. Physical mystery protects erotic desire, but emotional and social secrecy acts as a toxin that destroys emotional desire. That is the exact distinction. And what happens when those lines blur? What happens when one partner tries to assert healthy privacy, but the other misinterprets it as a threat? We see what music calls the hailstorm dynamic. Walk us through the hailstorm. Imagine an avoidant partner simply trying to individuate, taking some space to recharge. The other partner, who leans anxious, is terrified of abandonment. They misinterpret the privacy as a withdrawal of love, so they react like a hailstorm. They get angry, critical, demanding, constantly interrogating. Yes, pounding on the door, demanding total access. And this intense protest behavior triggers the avoidant partner's deepest fears of claustrophobia. They withdraw even further, often pushing them directly into toxic secrecy and stashing. Wow. The hailstorm creates the very isolation the anxious partner is terrified of. It's a devastating cycle. And that realization perfectly sets up our discussion on the profound damage caused by toxic secrecy. Because being stashed is what Carl Jung called a psychic poison. Jung theorized that the possession of a secret is. acts like a poison that alienates the possessor from their community. In romantic stashing, this poison is uniquely destructive because it forces the stashed partner to swallow the poison on the stasher's behalf. And we have modern empirical research to back this up. Our sources point to Dr. Justin J. Lemmiller's research published in PubMed. Let's dig into that. What is the actual measurable damage being done inside the shadow box? Lemiller demonstrates that relationship concealment actively sabotages a critical psychological infrastructure called cognitive interdependence. Cognitive interdependence. Is that the mental merging of two identities? The creation of the we map. Exactly. For a bond to mature, I has to become we in your cognitive map. You automatically factor your partner into future goals, financial decisions, social identity. When a partner is routinely erased from public life, this failure to socially integrate structurally undermines that psychological closeness. Because the brain literally cannot form the weak concept if the external reality constantly denies its existence. Yes. It creates a brutal asymmetry. The stasera lives in the light, fully integrated, while the hidden partner remains a ghost in their own relationship. And how does the brain process that asymmetry? If you put someone in a dark room and refuse to let them out, they're going to spend every waking hour trying to figure out why. And the human brain almost always turns the blame inward. The hidden partner internalizes the secrecy. It mutates into a diagnostic red flag for relational invalidation. ⁓ They ask, am I an embarrassment? Is there something fundamentally wrong with my career, my face, my weight? Relationship coach Susan Winter calls this the side chick dynamic. Even if you are totally monogamous, the dynamic relegates you to a lower rung. You're good enough for private convenience, but fundamentally not worthy of public validation. And this intense emotional strain manifests violently in the body. Lemmiller's research shows that secrecy generates a persistent state of negative affect. Meaning chronic, inescapable negative emotions. Specifically chronic anxiety, hypervigilance, nervousness, and a baseline state of fear. Imagine the physiological stress of just going out to dinner with a stasher, your nervous system is in overdrive, constantly scanning their face for panic. You're wondering if they're gonna pull away if they spot a coworker. It transforms a date into an exhausting tactical performance. And over time, maintaining that hypervigilance leads to profound fatigue, insomnia, digestive issues, and somatic pain. The body literally breaks down under the weight of the secret. So to you, the listener, if you are nodding along right now, being a secret doesn't just hurt your feelings, it literally makes you sick. It's like trying to grow a plant in a dark closet. Eventually the like of light manifests as physical withering. You simply cannot thrive in an environment where your existence is treated as a liability. And once you realize you are withering in the dark, you need a strategy to get out. Which brings us to actionable clinical protocols for confronting a stasher. How do we break free without triggering an explosion? We have to return to the two rules: the rule of betrayal versus the rule of mystery. You demand total transparency regarding information that causes betrayal, like being systematically excluded. But you respect the rule of mystery by maintaining your own personal separateness. Right, so you don't trigger the hailstorm dynamic. But the hidden partner must take the initiative to open direct communication. You can't approach this recklessly. You can't just come out swinging and call them a narcissist. Absolutely not. Therapists heavily advise against accusatory language. If you attack their character, they will instantly deflect or shut down. You must rely on I statements. Focus strictly on neutral observation and your personal emotional needs. Give me a concrete example. What exact words should I use? You might say, I've noticed that we've been dating for six months now and we spend a lot of wonderful time together, but I haven't met any of your friends or family yet. I feel hurt and sidelined when I'm kept at a distance. Can we talk about a timeline for integration? Because moving forward, I need to feel that my partner is proud of our bond. It's brilliant. It's strictly observational. Six months is a fact. And it states a core need without calling them a monster. It puts the ball entirely in their court. And this conversation acts as an immediate diagnostic litmus test for the viability of the entire relationship. There are two distinct outcomes. The first is relational viability. The green light. Yes. A committed partner will validate your concern. They might share underlying motivations, past trauma, family issues, but most importantly, apologies are followed by actionable steps. They will agree to a specific timeline for a soft launch or a low pressure meeting. They actively start pulling you into the light. But what about the relational exit sign? The red light? That looks like persistent avoidance. Gaslighting, trying to make you feel insane or needy for even bringing it up, or offering a rotating carousel of recycled excuses. Our friends are too busy, let's wait until the holidays. The excuses engine kicks into high gear. But let me ask you the ultimate pragmatic question. If the six-month mark is the threshold. What happens if you have this conversation at month five, they promise to change, but month seven rolls around, then month eight, and you're still a secret. Is there any coming back from that? The clinical consensus is absolute. No. A relationship cannot survive a lifestyle of concealment. If a relationship exceeds that threshold without tangible movement, despite clear communication, it ceases to be a viable partnership. It transitions into a direct source of ongoing psychological harm. Exactly. When words do not align with actions for that long, you have to recognize the non negotiable exit sign and walk away. Staying means actively accepting a hierarchy where you are permanently stationed at the bottom. It means agreeing to your own erasure. So how do we avoid these stashers altogether? Because we've talked about how uncertified dating leads directly to this kind of toxic ambiguity. We need a solution, a way to date with actual intentionality. We do. And that is exactly why we constantly point back to the Speed Mingle ecosystem as the ultimate remedy for dating burnout. It removes the ambiguity entirely. Yes, speed mingle. Let's actually walk through all six of these intentional modalities for the listener because if you are tired of the shadow box, this is how you fix your relational portfolio. Let's start with Speed Mingle Anywhere. Speed Mingle Anywhere is incredible because it gives you authentic face-to-face video interactions right from home. You're actually seeing the person, not an expired filter. Which immediately cuts out the digital erasure problem. Exactly. You verify they exist in the real world immediately. Then you have speed mingle social, which are these relaxed, non-hosted weekly gatherings at established local venues. It's public, which completely neutralizes the public avoidance tactic of a stasher. Right. You are inherently meeting in a community space. Then there is speed mingle happenings. These are curated activity based events that eliminate awkward small talk. You are doing something engaging which fosters real, unforced connection. And if you're not even looking for romance right now, but just want to build your circle, there's speed mingle neighbors, high energy social events that turn local strangers into friends. No romance required. Which is so healthy for maintaining that individuation we talked about. And for the career-driven folks, Speed Mingle B2B offers a high octane, round-robin, professional networking format to maximize your career circle. Love that. And lastly, launching in the fall of 2026, we have Speed Mingle One to One, pre-vetted personalized low pressure meetings based on real compatibility. The entire ecosystem is designed to pull people out of the shadows and into the light. It forces intentionality. It forces people to show up fully. So to bring this all together, today we've taken a massive deep dive into a phenomenon that turns the murky waters of modern dating completely toxic. Stashing thrives on plausible deniability, keeping a partner tucked away. While projecting a single persona to the world. And we've established those crucial timelines. Taking it slow is fine, but surpassing six months without integration is a severe red flag. Privacy promotes individuation and preserves mystery. But secrecy is a psychic poison rooted in shame or fear. And it literally makes the hidden partner sick. So if you find yourself hidden, run the diagnostic litmus test, use I statements, and if they won't bring you into the light, find the exit. Because you Listening right now deserve to be seamlessly woven into the fabric of a shared public life. If someone truly wants you, they make room for you in all of it. Not just when it's convenient for them. Exactly. And I want to leave you with a final lingering question to ponder. We've established the deep pain of digital erasure. But consider the flip side. Has social media conditioned us to view our romantic partners primarily as digital currency? ⁓ wow. If our ultimate validation only comes from being hard launched, To an audience of loose acquaintances online, are we actually seeking genuine relational security? Or have we just been trained to perform our love for the algorithm? Are we chasing true connection or just the aesthetic of connection? That is a brilliant, unsettling question to end on. Thank you so much for joining us on this deep dive. Now we want to urge you to take the initiative, get out there and attend a local speed mingle event to mix, match, and mingle. And if an event is not currently available in your area? Contact Speedmingle to become a local host or a venue partner. We need people bringing intentionality to their communities. You can catch us on all audio platforms Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube Music, Amazon Music, Audible, iHeartRadio, and Deezer. And if you prefer video, catch Speed Mingle TV on YouTube, Roku, Amazon Fire TV. Just search Speedmingle Network or on the mobile web app at speedmingle.moby. Everything you need is at our official hub, 21st Century Dating Decoded.com. Please smash that subscribe button, drop us a five-star review, and share this link with that friend who still uses an expired filter on a dark head shot. They need to hear this. They really do. Until our subsequent episode, remain deliberate, maintain protection, and consistently date with a defined purpose. Welcome to Speed Mingle, where making real connections happens in Stream, swipe, socialize, your ultimate connection network. Jump in now. Thanks for tuning in to the Speed Mingle Network.