The kid in question being Braden “Clavicular” Peters, the blandly handsome face of the “looksmaxxing” trend that recently broke containment from red pill circles. Looksmaxxing, for the uninitiated, is the practice of fracturing bones and drowning yourself in pharmaceuticals until you become conventionally attractive. It’s an extreme response to the allegedly unique problems faced by young men in the dating pool, one that pretty much guarantees a visceral reaction. So of course, Clavicular has functioned as catnip to mainstream pundits and publications. His nihilistic ideology and over-the-top escapades have served as scaffolding for countless pieces and interviews—more than enough, in fact. We can stop now.
Don’t get me wrong: There are plenty of arguments in favor of interviewing someone like Clavicular.
- The dystopian clip farming industry guarantees that though Clavicular’s numbers on his livestreaming platform of choice, Kick, might not be astronomical, he is nonetheless everywhere.
- What he preaches to his large, young audience—in terms of both sexist, far right-friendly superficiality and a lifestyle centered around content for content’s sake at the expense of all else—deserves to be interrogated by non-terminally online people.
- Despite his many objectionable qualities and actions, Clavicular's story is a distinctly sad one, with cynical online subcultures transforming him into an exposed raw nerve of insecurities. This, too, is worth interrogating.
- For more traditional reporters who have not spent years immersed in livestreaming culture, Clavicular functions as a window into that world, albeit an incredibly distorted one.
- Looksmaxxing, while an undeniably corrosive influence on society, can be very funny. For example, mogging, in which looksmaxxers basically attempt to outdo each other in terms of appearance or any other category, involves a level of pageantry that lands somewhere between pro wrestling and decades of queer tradition, despite looksmaxxers insisting that they’re straight. (Clavicular has been confronted by trans women about this on multiple occasions.)
I have just two arguments against interviewing Clavicular: 1) He is 20 years old and stupid as hell. 2) 60 Minutes Australia recently conducted an interview that covers all of the above bases and these as well, though especially the former. By the end, an outraged Clavicular removed his mic and walked off. This was not the first time he’s done this, but it felt like a culmination. What more is there to learn from the charade of taking this deeply unserious person and his roving carnival of side characters seriously? We can move on.
60 Minutes Australia reporter Adam Hegarty made his smartest move out the gate by not even really pretending like he saw merit in Clavicular’s forum-born philosophies. He did not mock or deride his subject, but when he smelled bullshit, he weaved it into his line of questioning—like any good interviewer should, but too few actually do.
Take, for example, the following exchange:
Hegarty: Why do you think you've become so extraordinarily popular among young men?
Clavicular: Because looksmaxxing is the key thing that was missing from the manosphere and a lot of male internet spaces. And it's kind of the answer, right? You could overcome a lot of disparities by becoming rich, by becoming famous, or whatever type of success. But if you're not physically attractive, then you won't really be able to have lasting relationships with women, you won't really gain a lot of respect from people around you, and you're treated differently right off the bat because of something called 'The Halo Effect,' right? And that's a horrible thing to have to overcome your whole life if you're not genetically well off.
Hegarty: See now, I would disagree and make the argument, Clav, that character, personality, maturity, [and] intelligence are far more important than appearance. Do you think I'm wrong?
Clavicular: Well, bingo, there it is, but those are all perceived entirely differently, once again, based upon your looks. So you're absolutely correct. You're just forgetting that key piece of nuance that is kind of the reason my message resonates so well.
Hegarty: Do you think that sends the wrong message to vulnerable, insecure men?
Clavicular: I think it's a hard thing to hear at first if you're someone who is genetically not good looking—if you're telling them that the world revolves around being good looking. Because now they have to overcome this seemingly impossible obstacle in their life and potentially do all these pharmaceutical drugs, get plastic surgeries, whatever. But this is true, and we have a lot of data to back it up. So how people respond to this sort of brutal reality is up to them. But yeah, you're certainly right: It could send people into spirals, give them severe body dysmorphia, whatever. But it's just a reality pill that needs to be out there.
Hegarty: But see, I disagree, Clav. I don't think appearance is as important as you're suggesting.
Clavicular: Hm. Do you think that if you were bald, if you were fat that you would be doing this interview—that you would be a journalist?
Hegarty: Yeah. Yeah I do.
Now, it’s worth noting that Hegarty is attractive, and that’s part of what makes this interview work so well. Here’s a calm, self-assured, good-looking slightly older guy telling an insecure, younger exemplar of what it supposedly means to be good-looking that the dire messages he’s spent his teenage years absorbing crumble in the face of actual life experience. And Hegarty would know: He’s lived it, where Clavicular, comparatively, hasn’t. (Also, Clavicular evidently doesn’t know many journalists, because otherwise he’d be aware that a lot of them are, in fact, bald.)
As many online have observed, Hegarty is effectively mogging Clavicular—beating him at his own game and a handful of more important ones besides. This is how you diffuse harmful ideologies meant to lure in angry, confused, or otherwise fearful men: You present facts, sure, but you also show them an alternative.
The remainder of the interview proceeds more or less apace until Clavicular eventually storms out. Hegarty does not ask Clavicular especially difficult questions, because despite Clavicular’s talk of complicated stats and stacks that underpin his worldview, there’s just not all that much to it. It remains fundamentally immature. To wit, Clavicular departs before the titular 60-minute mark because he catches a faint whiff of politics.
"You've been seen with certain people who are from all parts of that [incel-adjacent] world,” says Hegarty after Clavicular calls questions about his connections to incel culture “quite literally the worst sequence of questions” he’d ever heard. “Just as an example, you've obviously shared company with Andrew Tate and other, dare I say, rather controversial figures. Why do you spend time with people like that?"
"I see you wanna make this political,” Clavicular replies.
The two then talk over each other for a moment before Hegarty clarifies: "I don't care about your politics. I know you're not political. You've said that repeatedly. When you get seen with those people, obviously people make assumptions. I'm wondering what the thought process and motivation is for you behind [spending time with them]."
Seems like a fair question! So of course, Clavicular resorts to vague threats.
"I guess you watched the Piers [Morgan] interview,” he says. “Too bad I didn't have time to look into anything about, you know, potentially, you know, who your wife cheated with. But don't try to go down that line of questioning with me. Because I'm not doing any political [questions].”
"I'm not married, Clav," replies Hegarty.
At which point Clavicular is left with just one tool in his arsenal: the cornerstone of his entire freshly-hatched egg of personality, enormous to him and yet so small to everyone else.
"Maybe you've gotta looksmaxx, then,” he mumbles. “I could teach you how to looksmaxx, and then maybe you could switch that up. But thanks for the time. Appreciate the interview."
Recommended
Nathan Grayson
