26 June 2026

by Paul Haneke

In a recent interview with Channel 5, ‘looksmaxxing’ figurehead Braden Peters, better known online as “Clavicular”, shared his views and philosophies regarding his male-only subculture. The majority of his replies were centered around graciously giving advice on how to improve one’s optics in extremely dangerous and delicately elaborate ways (to whom exactly remains uncertain). The interesting part, however, begins when he starts unraveling the psychological framework with which he justifies the movement.

To very briefly lay some groundwork: The core belief of looksmaxxers is centered around the idea that pretty people have it easier in almost every aspect in life, which they call “lookism”. This is why they dedicate immense amounts of time and effort into improving, or “maxxing” their looks. Therefore, to them it is only natural to hyper-prioritize personal attractiveness in order to gain a universal advantage over the competition. For looksmaxxers, beauty and worth are not something inherent or special, they appear to be extrinsically acquired stats continuously to be improved, with the final goal of ‘maxxing out’ your overall value and ultimately ‘ascend’ (reach the highest realm of looksmaxxing possibilities). Interestingly however, they regard beauty not as something subjective, which changes from one beholder to the other, but instead as something absolutely objective, absolutely measurable. If your measurements turn out higher than your fellow alpha male’s, you are “mogging” them (asserting dominance and causing their cortisol levels to spike).

Clavicular: “It’s about real results and this is a completely objective thing. This isn’t my opinion and it never has been a subjective thing… it is very, very well researched that […] there is a huge bias towards good looking people. So, objectively you could hate me as a content creator, but at least realize the value and what I’m talking about.

With that out of the way, back to the interview. We are not even 3 minutes into the one hour long conversation, and Peters has already introduced terms such as “facial harmony score” and (an individual’s) “looks-level”.  In his world, there is no margin for opinion or preference. There is only objective truth and it scales from one to one hundred and can be read directly off your face by measuring and calculating its “forehead-chin-ratio”. As if this was not already grim enough, it seems as though Peters applies this harmfully reductive way of thinking to more than just looks; it is how he sees the world. Quick disclaimer: Peters believes himself to be neurodivergent, however, he does not have a professional diagnosis. My goal is not in any way to make fun of him for seeing the world the way he does or merely point it out as ‘not normal’, but to instead showcase how these views directly tie into the core values of looksmaxxing and how they might have been the catalyst for him becoming the face of the entire movement.

When the interviewer asks Peters on his views on people in general, he says that he cannot relate to the majority of them, even disregards them as “NPCs” (Non-Playable-Characters = people with no real drive or agenda), since they do not share his ultimate goal of ascending and he disdains their refusal to work towards it. The more you hear of him putting his thoughts about interpersonal relationships into words, the more you start to realize how completely cut off from genuine human connection he is. And the worst part is, he does not seem to fit the common archetype of malicious opportunist who is cashing in on his unprompted fame without believing in what he is saying; his whole demeanour appears heart wrenchingly genuine.

Channel 5: “Screen time is at an all-time high. […] Less people have real friends.”
 Clavicular: “I don’t know the relevance of that… what’s the relevance of that?”

He himself comes up with the statement that it would be an utterly “ridiculous” idea to go on a date with your partner. Unless you are livestreaming it! This perfectly outlines his way of prioritizing things: if anything does not have an immediately measurable worth and instead offers rewards such as emotional or intellectual comfort, it is simply not worth his time. So… why go out on private date with a person you genuinely like, when you could instead hypersexualize them and treat as an accessory, proudly showing them of in front of thousands of like-minded young men that idolize you. Such segments unironically makes up large parts of Clavicular’s livestreams. This example demonstrates how intricately absurd the looksmaxxing value system appears to be: some things, in this case having a partner, are worthless to one’s ascension and are considered nonsensical. On the other hand, showing off said partner to a large audience of strangers brings so many positive side factors, for example being controversial, going viral, making money and even boosting your imaginary market value, that the positives outweigh the negatives of… spending time with a person you are supposed to like.

Channel 5: “Well what about like connecting with her [a potential partner] because you like her or something like that, you know, maybe you want to start a family.”

Clavicular: “But where’s the R.O.I. in that?”

Channel 5: “What’s that?”

Clavicular: “Like where is the R.O.I.”

Channel 5: “Sorry, what’s ‘R.O.I.’”

Clavicular: “Return on Investment.”

This quick exchange encapsulates it perfectly. Peters is regarding basic human interaction, just like he does everything else, through the lens of profit maximization with the constant goal of improving ones standing, whether it be in terms of finances, authority, or internet fame. There is no nuance, no interpretation, no opinion. Except, of course, if the opinion was formed by a male of higher status than yourself. Then you may adopt it.

Anyways, good thing they have gotten rid of nuance; that way I won’t have to worry about whether to regard Peters as a pitiable young man with the devastating lot of having COVID isolate him during his most formative teen years, or, alternatively, as a conceited misogynist, who is actively trying to poison young minds with his vanity. Lucky me.

Related Article:

Of ‘Chads’, ‘Sub5s’ and ‘Mogging’:

The Language and Culture of ‘Looksmaxxing’

By Silvia Gerlsbeck Premet

Channel 5 Interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_6mni6k0Zw&t=1s

On Looksmaxxing: https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20240326-inside-looksmaxxing-the-extreme-cosmetic-social-media-trend