WEBVTT - Clavicular, looksmaxxing, and how extremists hijack the algorithm 0:00:00.360 --> 0:00:02.719 Just a quick heads up that today's episode mentioned self 0:00:02.759 --> 0:00:09.560 harm and disordered eating. There Are No Girls on the 0:00:09.600 --> 0:00:17.000 Internet as a production of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative. I'm 0:00:17.000 --> 0:00:18.959 Bridget Todd, and this is There Are No Girls on 0:00:19.000 --> 0:00:24.439 the Internet. This is part two of a two part 0:00:24.520 --> 0:00:30.280 episode about Brandon Peters aka Clovicular, the looks maxing influencer 0:00:30.320 --> 0:00:34.720 who recently experienced an overdose on a live stream. If 0:00:34.760 --> 0:00:37.800 you have not listened to part one, you should. In 0:00:37.840 --> 0:00:40.639 that part one, we walk through who Peters is and 0:00:40.680 --> 0:00:44.440 how he rose to prominence online. And in the second part, 0:00:44.760 --> 0:00:46.480 I want to talk about the role that I think 0:00:46.560 --> 0:00:48.960 the mainstream media played in that rise. 0:00:49.560 --> 0:00:50.479 And it didn't even. 0:00:50.400 --> 0:00:53.360 Really start with coverage of Peter's Let's take it back 0:00:53.400 --> 0:00:56.160 to how mainstream outlets were writing about the rise of 0:00:56.160 --> 0:01:02.040 the so called al right a few years ago. So 0:01:02.160 --> 0:01:05.000 let's talk about the role that media plays in turning 0:01:05.440 --> 0:01:10.160 niche extremists like Brandon Peters also known as Clovicular online 0:01:10.200 --> 0:01:14.480 into celebrity figures. I need to own that it's a 0:01:14.520 --> 0:01:17.319 little bit complicated, because I also do feel that we 0:01:17.360 --> 0:01:22.759 spent far too much time doing that thing where media says, oh, 0:01:22.840 --> 0:01:26.479 we're going to ignore these extremist figures and just allow 0:01:26.560 --> 0:01:29.440 them to amass more and more power and influence without 0:01:29.480 --> 0:01:32.240 any kind of mainstream scrutiny. And then by the time 0:01:32.280 --> 0:01:35.160 this figure is big and they're everywhere all over the Internet, 0:01:35.360 --> 0:01:37.760 then mainstream media is talking about them. But by then 0:01:37.800 --> 0:01:40.840 it's way too late. They're they're very powerful. I saw 0:01:40.880 --> 0:01:43.120 that a lot, and I think it was a big mistake. 0:01:43.600 --> 0:01:46.560 But it's also not like the only two choices are 0:01:47.120 --> 0:01:50.919 either media ignores figures like Peters as they get bigger 0:01:50.920 --> 0:01:54.160 and bigger, or they have to cover them, but they 0:01:54.160 --> 0:01:56.160 have no choice but to do so in ways that 0:01:56.320 --> 0:01:59.360 essentially celebrate them or almost kind of sound like they're 0:01:59.600 --> 0:02:02.320 advocate for them, or that they think that the audience 0:02:02.320 --> 0:02:05.800 should be sort of flattered or or interested in them, 0:02:05.960 --> 0:02:09.280 where they're essentially doing positive pr for these folks and 0:02:09.360 --> 0:02:12.200 helping them build their brands. Like I think there's got 0:02:12.240 --> 0:02:15.119 to be a line between writing critically about these figures 0:02:15.240 --> 0:02:18.200 and essentially doing the work of building up their platforms 0:02:18.280 --> 0:02:21.600 on their behalf. And this is a conversation that really 0:02:21.720 --> 0:02:25.320 predates the rise of Peters. This is probably not the 0:02:25.320 --> 0:02:27.639 first example of this or the only example of this, 0:02:27.919 --> 0:02:30.480 But the one that sticks with me very personally is 0:02:30.520 --> 0:02:34.400 back in twenty sixteen when Mother Jones wrote about Richard 0:02:34.440 --> 0:02:37.799 Spencer and the rise of the so called alt right. 0:02:38.240 --> 0:02:40.520 Now, to be clear, having read the whole. 0:02:40.320 --> 0:02:42.840 Piece, it is like critical of the alt right and 0:02:42.840 --> 0:02:46.400 critical of figures like Spencer, but the headline for the 0:02:46.400 --> 0:02:50.520 piece was like check out these dapper new Nazis strolling 0:02:50.560 --> 0:02:53.360 into town. It was actually a little bit hard to 0:02:53.400 --> 0:02:56.280 find the actual article because they did change the title 0:02:56.320 --> 0:02:58.880 on the piece that ran online eventually, but they didn't 0:02:58.919 --> 0:03:01.160 remove it from the Instagram, and we dug and we dug, 0:03:01.200 --> 0:03:04.480 and we were able to find it. And again I 0:03:04.480 --> 0:03:07.760 alway said the piece is critical of the alt right, 0:03:07.960 --> 0:03:12.359 but the first few sentences are like describing Richard Spencer 0:03:12.720 --> 0:03:17.559 in this beautiful hotel room, eating fancy sushi with chopsticks, 0:03:17.639 --> 0:03:22.200 and he almost sounds like a lifestyle influencer or a 0:03:22.240 --> 0:03:26.880 menswear influencer and not a hate monger. And so again 0:03:27.120 --> 0:03:30.160 that the piece itself was critical, But the headline in 0:03:30.240 --> 0:03:33.600 the image of Spencer in this like dapper suit, also 0:03:33.680 --> 0:03:36.960 with a subhead that again calls him handsome and dapper 0:03:37.000 --> 0:03:39.200 and says that they're trying to make fascism cool again. 0:03:39.680 --> 0:03:43.280 That's what people share on social media. It's the headline 0:03:43.280 --> 0:03:45.600 and the image. And so even if the piece goes 0:03:45.600 --> 0:03:47.320 on to be critical, which in this case it did, 0:03:47.720 --> 0:03:51.040 the conversation that the building up around the piece kind 0:03:51.040 --> 0:03:55.400 of sounds like, look at these cool, handsome Nazis, which yuck, 0:03:56.600 --> 0:03:59.160 and to me that kind of came to represent the 0:03:59.200 --> 0:04:03.040 pinnacle of the bad job media has done when it 0:04:03.040 --> 0:04:05.640 comes to how we talk about these folks critically. In 0:04:05.720 --> 0:04:08.320 the same way that I think it was very irresponsible 0:04:08.360 --> 0:04:11.880 for The New York Times to call Peters a handsomeness 0:04:11.880 --> 0:04:15.480 influencer in that big profile of him that really helped 0:04:15.520 --> 0:04:18.560 build his platform, I also did not think it was 0:04:18.600 --> 0:04:21.320 appropriate to frame the alt right as almost like a 0:04:21.400 --> 0:04:25.440 dapper menswear club. I'm not saying that these folks should 0:04:25.480 --> 0:04:28.320 not be written about. I think they absolutely should be 0:04:28.320 --> 0:04:31.200 written about, because they deserve mainstream scrutiny and we should 0:04:31.279 --> 0:04:34.400 know who they are. But writing about them like this 0:04:34.720 --> 0:04:36.960 is a choice. Writing about them in this way that 0:04:37.040 --> 0:04:39.200 builds their brands for them is a. 0:04:39.200 --> 0:04:42.320 Choice, right, And in some of these cases it almost 0:04:42.320 --> 0:04:45.960 seems like the media outlets themselves, like in that New 0:04:46.040 --> 0:04:50.320 York Times example, want to be a political right like 0:04:51.120 --> 0:04:55.960 just reporting on this guy doing this thing, no deeper 0:04:56.080 --> 0:05:00.360 thought about it. And that's, in my opinion, a really 0:05:01.000 --> 0:05:05.480 disappointing approach to journalism. Right Like with Mother Jones writing 0:05:05.480 --> 0:05:08.840 about Richard Spencer, I think they got it wrong because 0:05:08.880 --> 0:05:11.880 I don't my understanding is that Mother Jones is like 0:05:12.120 --> 0:05:16.000 pretty solidly anti Nazi, right like it is a publication 0:05:16.120 --> 0:05:19.080 that is solidly anti Nazi. So they got that wrong. 0:05:19.680 --> 0:05:25.120 These more recent pieces about Peters, I don't have that 0:05:25.240 --> 0:05:28.719 same confidence that they view this stuff as harmful. It 0:05:28.760 --> 0:05:34.880 almost seems like they're flirting with it as harmless or okay, 0:05:35.160 --> 0:05:38.680 or worth it or somehow acceptable like they like. It 0:05:38.920 --> 0:05:41.919 feels like some of them are almost actively trying to 0:05:42.120 --> 0:05:44.240 whitewash it and make it more acceptable. 0:05:45.000 --> 0:05:50.880 Yes, because this is somebody who objectively pushes white supremac societeology. 0:05:51.279 --> 0:05:55.400 This is somebody who is publicly engaged in self harm 0:05:55.440 --> 0:05:58.400 and the harm of others. Choosing in the title or 0:05:58.400 --> 0:06:00.159 the subhead of your piece to describe him as to 0:06:00.200 --> 0:06:03.400 somebody who promotes handsomeness, come on, you know, And I 0:06:03.440 --> 0:06:04.640 think this gets. 0:06:04.400 --> 0:06:05.440 Back to my opinion. 0:06:05.480 --> 0:06:08.680 I guess my take is that I think a lot 0:06:08.760 --> 0:06:13.480 of legacy media organizations they're doing that because they understand 0:06:13.560 --> 0:06:16.520 that framing it that way gets more engagement. If you 0:06:16.560 --> 0:06:19.520 were to frame it as a critical piece about somebody 0:06:19.520 --> 0:06:21.839 who is unwell and engages in self harm in the 0:06:21.839 --> 0:06:24.960 harm of others, I don't think that's as edgy as 0:06:25.120 --> 0:06:29.800 describing it as, Oh, this handsome guy who has kind 0:06:29.839 --> 0:06:34.680 of an unusual worldview and an unusual pastime and practice 0:06:34.720 --> 0:06:38.680 around self improvement. I mean, it almost kind of feels 0:06:38.720 --> 0:06:41.880 like a certain type of access journalism, but the access 0:06:41.920 --> 0:06:44.080 that they're trying to get is access to somebody who 0:06:44.120 --> 0:06:45.000 was clearly unwell. 0:06:45.480 --> 0:06:49.200 It is definitely a tricky fine line to walk of, 0:06:49.400 --> 0:06:54.080 like how journalist should be covering people like this. But 0:06:55.080 --> 0:06:57.960 to your point, I think it seems clear that the 0:06:58.040 --> 0:07:01.880 coverage that Peters has got over the past week is 0:07:01.960 --> 0:07:05.240 not the way, right, Like, it seems like this is 0:07:05.520 --> 0:07:08.400 not the way, and we all need to learn how 0:07:08.400 --> 0:07:09.479 to cover it better. 0:07:10.120 --> 0:07:12.040 Yes, and I'm glad that you put it that way, 0:07:12.040 --> 0:07:14.360 because I'm not pretending like I have. 0:07:14.400 --> 0:07:15.960 All the answers. I certainly don't. 0:07:16.320 --> 0:07:20.480 Even the Louis's throau Manosphere documentary that you mentioned I heard, 0:07:20.520 --> 0:07:23.640 I read and heard a lot of criticism saying that 0:07:23.680 --> 0:07:25.880 documentary was a failure because it just ended up giving 0:07:25.960 --> 0:07:28.080 these guys exactly what they wanted, which is a bigger 0:07:28.080 --> 0:07:32.240 platform in another stage. Right, I personally did not happen 0:07:32.280 --> 0:07:34.600 to agree with that tape, but I understand that take, 0:07:35.040 --> 0:07:38.680 and I wanted to say that because it is complicated, 0:07:38.720 --> 0:07:41.760 it is a fine line to walk. It does become 0:07:41.800 --> 0:07:44.880 difficult to know when you have crossed over into giving 0:07:44.880 --> 0:07:48.440 somebody a platform or amplifying them versus engaging in like 0:07:48.480 --> 0:07:50.880 important criticism or like critique or. 0:07:50.880 --> 0:07:51.760 Scrutiny with them. 0:07:51.800 --> 0:07:55.360 I absolutely own that that is a tough line to walk. 0:07:55.680 --> 0:07:58.160 But I know it's not calling them a handsomeness influencer. 0:07:58.440 --> 0:08:01.200 I know it's not obscuring the fact that this is 0:08:01.200 --> 0:08:03.280 somebody who is engaging an act of self harm and 0:08:03.320 --> 0:08:06.200 harming others on camera, right, Like, I know that it 0:08:06.240 --> 0:08:09.080 is complicated, but it's worth that needs to be done, 0:08:09.120 --> 0:08:11.000 and it's worth figuring out because we're going to just 0:08:11.040 --> 0:08:14.640 see more and more and more of these figures rising 0:08:14.680 --> 0:08:17.720 to prominence, and I know that this is not the right. 0:08:17.640 --> 0:08:18.200 Way to do it. 0:08:18.720 --> 0:08:22.080 Yeah, and I agree that it's going to become a 0:08:22.320 --> 0:08:25.920 even bigger problem because there's just so much reward to 0:08:26.000 --> 0:08:30.040 be had. Right, if you're like a mid tier influencer, 0:08:30.600 --> 0:08:34.400 and you look at this enormous run of success that 0:08:34.440 --> 0:08:36.880 Peters has had over the past week, where he has 0:08:37.640 --> 0:08:43.120 shot to national attention and celebrity emulating, that probably looks 0:08:43.120 --> 0:08:46.280 like a pretty good idea, right, And I think people 0:08:46.360 --> 0:08:52.080 in traditional media really need to think carefully about making 0:08:52.080 --> 0:08:55.800 sure that they aren't setting themselves up to be gained 0:08:56.240 --> 0:09:02.880 by smart, savvy, young influencer types who are taking notes 0:09:03.360 --> 0:09:08.360 and behaving in ways specifically to get this kind of 0:09:08.520 --> 0:09:12.040 attention because it is so rewarding exactly. 0:09:12.120 --> 0:09:15.200 So let's break that down, because I want to be clear, 0:09:15.600 --> 0:09:19.560 it's not like Peters was a complete nobody. He has 0:09:19.640 --> 0:09:23.960 over a million followers across platforms. He is and was 0:09:24.280 --> 0:09:29.120 genuinely influential within the looks maxing community. But that context 0:09:29.160 --> 0:09:31.600 that you just met brought up really matters a lot. 0:09:31.679 --> 0:09:35.640 So if we compare him to other major manuscrire influencers, 0:09:36.200 --> 0:09:39.760 Andrew Tait has tens of millions of followers and clearly 0:09:39.840 --> 0:09:44.120 has mainstream political access. Jordan Peterson, he has a book Empire, 0:09:44.400 --> 0:09:47.560 major interviewers, even folks that I would categorize as sort 0:09:47.600 --> 0:09:51.080 of mid tier figures like Fresh and Fit, They have 0:09:51.600 --> 0:09:56.040 much larger, more established fan bases than Peters ever had. 0:09:56.440 --> 0:09:59.720 Before December twenty twenty five, about the time when Peters 0:09:59.760 --> 0:10:04.439 was on my radar, he was very known within his subculture, 0:10:04.720 --> 0:10:08.040 but basically not really that known outside of it unless 0:10:08.040 --> 0:10:11.560 you were somebody who was following online niche subcultures, and that, like, 0:10:11.640 --> 0:10:14.040 unless you were someone like me who is like like 0:10:14.120 --> 0:10:16.320 like in the trenches, you probably didn't know who this 0:10:16.400 --> 0:10:16.840 guy was. 0:10:17.280 --> 0:10:19.440 And what happened to change that? 0:10:20.040 --> 0:10:23.559 I would argue press coverage because let's look at this timeline. 0:10:24.200 --> 0:10:28.000 November twenty twenty five, Peters injects his underage girlfriend with 0:10:28.080 --> 0:10:33.400 peptides on stream. Mostly that that controversy states internal. December 0:10:33.480 --> 0:10:37.000 twenty fourth, twenty twenty five, Peters is live streaming himself 0:10:37.120 --> 0:10:41.320 driving a cyber truck in Miami. He seemingly hits someone 0:10:41.520 --> 0:10:46.040 on the live stream, goes viral. Late December through January 0:10:46.040 --> 0:10:49.679 of this year, The Atlantic, The Guardian, Rolling Stone, and 0:10:49.720 --> 0:10:53.240 The New York Times simultaneously all began working on major 0:10:53.320 --> 0:10:57.480 profiles of him. By January twenty twenty six, Thomas Chatterton 0:10:57.520 --> 0:11:01.120 Williams of The Atlantic, who I fucking hate, calls Peters 0:11:01.240 --> 0:11:04.319 the newest star and most recognizable member of the Looks 0:11:04.320 --> 0:11:08.440 Maxing movement, but recognizable to whom I would argue that 0:11:08.480 --> 0:11:13.000 he became recognizable because these publications said that he was recognizable, 0:11:13.040 --> 0:11:15.000 said that he was somebody that you need to know about. 0:11:15.520 --> 0:11:18.640 February twenty twenty six, The New York Times publishes its 0:11:18.760 --> 0:11:22.880 major profile by Joseph Bernstein. Peters is now earning one 0:11:22.960 --> 0:11:27.040 hundred thousand dollars a month. Also in February, Peters walks 0:11:27.080 --> 0:11:29.560 New York Fashion Week for designer Elena Vallez. 0:11:29.640 --> 0:11:32.000 This is just days after his arrest in Arizona. 0:11:32.559 --> 0:11:35.199 By late March of twenty twenty six, The New York 0:11:35.240 --> 0:11:39.040 Times devotes a full episode of The Daily to Peter's 0:11:39.080 --> 0:11:42.360 and Looks Maxing, and then that leads us to just 0:11:42.559 --> 0:11:46.760 last week, April fourteenth, twenty twenty six, Peters is hospitalized 0:11:46.800 --> 0:11:51.520 for a suspected drug overghost while live streaming. So to me, 0:11:52.160 --> 0:11:55.960 that paints a very clear timeline of the fact that 0:11:56.440 --> 0:12:02.560 you know, this guy's increasingly extreme behavior plus mainstream media 0:12:02.600 --> 0:12:07.240 attention is what led to his celebrity really growing. Sophia 0:12:07.280 --> 0:12:10.560 Tespe wrote a really sharp piece of media criticism for 0:12:10.600 --> 0:12:13.480 Salon on April six, twenty twenty six, where she compared 0:12:13.520 --> 0:12:16.840 the coverage of Peters to this infamous twenty seventeen New 0:12:16.880 --> 0:12:20.640 York Times profile of Tony Hoviter, who is a neo 0:12:20.720 --> 0:12:24.160 Nazi welder in Ohio. The profile talked about how much 0:12:24.200 --> 0:12:26.960 this guy loved Seinfeld and how much he liked the 0:12:26.960 --> 0:12:30.920 store target, and the Times got into trouble for basically 0:12:31.120 --> 0:12:36.120 normalizing white nationalism. At Salon, test Fay writes, quote, if 0:12:36.200 --> 0:12:40.240 Charlottesville taught journalists to be wary of amplifying ideology, the 0:12:40.360 --> 0:12:43.920 current moment demands an understanding that in an attention economy, 0:12:44.200 --> 0:12:47.040 amplification itself is the ideology. 0:12:47.400 --> 0:12:49.640 And I completely agree with that. 0:12:50.000 --> 0:12:52.360 Again, I am not saying that these people should not 0:12:52.440 --> 0:12:55.120 be scrutinized, should not be written about, but it is 0:12:55.160 --> 0:12:57.560 a choice to write about them in a kind of 0:12:57.600 --> 0:13:00.120 way that this amplifies and does the work of that 0:13:00.120 --> 0:13:02.880 they're trying to do for them, That helps them launder 0:13:02.920 --> 0:13:08.080 their ideologies for audiences and make those ideologies seem cool 0:13:08.320 --> 0:13:10.760 or handsome or sexy or whatever. 0:13:11.240 --> 0:13:14.960 That's such a good comparison to that twenty seventeen profile. 0:13:15.000 --> 0:13:19.079 I remember that, you know, this was shortly after Trump 0:13:19.120 --> 0:13:22.880 had been elected to his first term, and there was 0:13:23.040 --> 0:13:31.120 like this national movement seemingly to like normalize extremists and 0:13:32.800 --> 0:13:37.800 make people with neo Nazi beliefs seem as if they 0:13:37.800 --> 0:13:42.240 were mainstream. And that was about ten years ago, and 0:13:42.280 --> 0:13:44.920 so it's interesting to think about that example and compare 0:13:44.960 --> 0:13:49.440 it with Peters what's happening today, because there are so 0:13:49.559 --> 0:13:54.360 many similarities to the underlying ideology as you've described, but 0:13:54.520 --> 0:13:58.480 like the face of it has evolved, possibly because it's 0:13:58.520 --> 0:14:02.280 been struck by a hammer, possibly for other reasons, most 0:14:02.360 --> 0:14:07.280 likely because people have gotten wise and that sort of 0:14:07.280 --> 0:14:12.760 stuff just doesn't play so well anymore. Maybe hopefully. 0:14:13.559 --> 0:14:15.760 I think you're right, And I guess that's why I 0:14:15.840 --> 0:14:18.680 keep bringing it back to this gender lens, because I 0:14:18.760 --> 0:14:21.160 really do think that if you took a woman an 0:14:21.200 --> 0:14:24.800 influencer who's claim to fame was disordered eating and promoting 0:14:24.840 --> 0:14:28.080 disordered eating for others, I don't think we would see 0:14:28.120 --> 0:14:32.120 these outlets covering it the same way we have women influencers, 0:14:32.120 --> 0:14:34.280 people like Live Schmid, who've talked about on the podcast 0:14:34.320 --> 0:14:38.200 before who their whole thing is being super thin and 0:14:38.280 --> 0:14:41.440 promoting disordered eating to others. And you don't see the 0:14:41.440 --> 0:14:44.880 New York Times calling them, you know, beauty influencers or 0:14:44.880 --> 0:14:47.920 influencers who promote beauty. They would they they're talked about 0:14:48.280 --> 0:14:50.400 in ways that I think make clear that they are 0:14:50.400 --> 0:14:55.480 promoting self harm and self harm tactics. And so just 0:14:55.520 --> 0:14:58.840 as somebody who came of Internet age in the tumbler days, 0:14:59.320 --> 0:15:03.040 I remember so clearly these they used to call pro 0:15:03.240 --> 0:15:08.800 ana accounts, Tumblr accounts that glorified and promoted disordered eating. 0:15:09.280 --> 0:15:13.440 It was a real cesspool. It's kind of coming back 0:15:13.480 --> 0:15:16.480 in the form of skinny talk. But we did not 0:15:16.640 --> 0:15:21.560 also have a mainstream media that was amplifying this and 0:15:21.680 --> 0:15:25.560 laundering this as a cool or sexy or reasonable thing 0:15:25.680 --> 0:15:27.760 to do like we do now. And so I think 0:15:27.800 --> 0:15:31.440 if you looked at Peter's documented behavior from that lens 0:15:31.840 --> 0:15:35.040 and not from an entertainment lens, it becomes so clear 0:15:35.520 --> 0:15:40.360 how irresponsible it is to divorce what Peters actually promotes 0:15:40.360 --> 0:15:43.720 and stands for from all of the harmful behaviors that 0:15:43.880 --> 0:15:48.120 it actually is. So, you know, self administering steroid injections 0:15:48.160 --> 0:15:52.200 starting at age fourteen, using methanbetamines to suppress appetites for 0:15:52.280 --> 0:15:55.520 appearance goals, bone smashing, hitting himself in the face with 0:15:55.520 --> 0:15:59.280 a hammer to change his bone structure. Obviously, doctors have 0:15:59.400 --> 0:16:02.840 said don't do that because it causes fractures that, ad 0:16:02.840 --> 0:16:07.120 healed properly, can cause permanent nerve damage and disfigurement. And 0:16:07.440 --> 0:16:10.400 on top of that, there is no scientific basis for 0:16:10.480 --> 0:16:12.960 it even working to make you look a certain way. 0:16:13.400 --> 0:16:17.440 Injecting unregulated substances into his own body and the body 0:16:17.480 --> 0:16:21.440 of others, including minors without medical training, and looking at 0:16:21.440 --> 0:16:25.840 the circumstances regarding his recent overdose when that happened, Peters 0:16:25.920 --> 0:16:29.440 posted to X with blood on his face, writing quote, 0:16:29.720 --> 0:16:32.480 the worst part of tonight was my face descending from 0:16:32.520 --> 0:16:33.720 the life support mask. 0:16:37.640 --> 0:16:50.440 Let's take a quick break at our back. 0:16:53.360 --> 0:16:56.760 Doctor Justin Neppa, who is a board certified psychiatrist in Florida, 0:16:57.040 --> 0:17:00.840 wrote a clinical analysis of looks, maxing and march. What 0:17:01.000 --> 0:17:04.000 often begins as an innocent foreway into better grooming or 0:17:04.040 --> 0:17:07.080 fitness can quickly spiral into a severe cycle of body 0:17:07.119 --> 0:17:11.840 dysmorphic disorder, depression, substance abuse, and self harm. He also 0:17:11.920 --> 0:17:14.119 said that he has seen young men spend three to 0:17:14.160 --> 0:17:19.160 four hours daily analyzing their facial features, measuring jawlines with calipers, 0:17:20.000 --> 0:17:25.560 and comparing themselves to digitally altered images. This creates masculine demoralization. 0:17:26.119 --> 0:17:30.200 And again, if you were a young woman who came 0:17:30.240 --> 0:17:33.399 of age when I did, at a time when magazine 0:17:33.440 --> 0:17:36.320 covers were all making it very clear that the most 0:17:36.400 --> 0:17:38.920 important thing that you could be was like super skinny 0:17:38.960 --> 0:17:44.120 to be hot, this behavior it doesn't seem that foreign 0:17:44.160 --> 0:17:47.639 to me, but then you have mainstream platforms trying to 0:17:47.640 --> 0:17:50.200 make it seem like this is reasonable or even safe 0:17:50.280 --> 0:17:54.399 or healthy behavior, that it's just you know, regular grooming 0:17:54.480 --> 0:17:58.600 or regular self improvement, when it isn't. Body dysmorphic disorder 0:17:58.640 --> 0:18:01.040 affects about two percent to the general population. 0:18:01.480 --> 0:18:02.600 In heavy social. 0:18:02.320 --> 0:18:05.160 Media users, that figure more than doubles to four point 0:18:05.200 --> 0:18:10.560 two percent. Forty percent of BDD sufferers are men. Studies 0:18:10.640 --> 0:18:14.600 consistently show that individuals with untreated BDD who undergo cosmetic 0:18:14.600 --> 0:18:19.320 procedures experience no improvement or worsening of symptoms. 0:18:19.600 --> 0:18:20.960 Peters has had multiple of. 0:18:20.880 --> 0:18:24.639 These procedures, so again, it's not like something where you 0:18:24.680 --> 0:18:28.560 can get the procedure, get the jaw line, get the 0:18:28.600 --> 0:18:31.119 thing that you've been holding out for and then a 0:18:31.200 --> 0:18:34.160 switch flips in your fine. In fact, the data seems 0:18:34.160 --> 0:18:36.280 to be pretty clear that that's actually not what happens. 0:18:36.119 --> 0:18:41.240 It's a consistent hamster wheel where the point is trying 0:18:41.240 --> 0:18:44.720 to achieve this status of perfection, but perfection does not 0:18:44.840 --> 0:18:48.400 really exist, So it's going to continue to be increasing 0:18:48.480 --> 0:18:51.880 things with a never ending cycle. A twenty twenty five 0:18:51.920 --> 0:18:56.040 peer reviewed paper called Looksmaxing colon straddling the inflection between 0:18:56.080 --> 0:18:59.840 self enhancement and self harm directly associates this content with 0:19:00.000 --> 0:19:04.520 body dissatisfaction, body dysmorphia, and suicidal ideation in young men. 0:19:05.200 --> 0:19:06.960 So when you look. 0:19:06.840 --> 0:19:11.240 At all of those behaviors together, the mess, the testosterone 0:19:11.280 --> 0:19:13.960 at fourteen, the hammer, I think it's pretty clear that 0:19:14.000 --> 0:19:16.160 we're talking about self harm behavior. 0:19:17.040 --> 0:19:20.240 Yeah, those are harmful behaviors, right, that one is doing 0:19:20.280 --> 0:19:24.760 himself by definition self harm exactly. 0:19:24.800 --> 0:19:27.040 And I just again, I just really think that we 0:19:27.080 --> 0:19:30.359 would be responding differently to Peter's if he were a woman. 0:19:30.560 --> 0:19:34.720 Going back to those early twenty tens tumblr pro anna 0:19:34.880 --> 0:19:39.119 pro anarexia communities, those communities were mostly teenage girls and 0:19:39.160 --> 0:19:39.640 young women. 0:19:40.080 --> 0:19:42.600 They were thin, spow photos. 0:19:42.160 --> 0:19:45.800 Diet tips, tips for evading parents and doctors, mantras like 0:19:45.920 --> 0:19:48.320 skip dinner, end up dinner again. If you listen to 0:19:48.320 --> 0:19:50.560 our Skinny Talk episode, you know that it's still very 0:19:50.640 --> 0:19:54.320 much a thing. It's very similar to I think what 0:19:54.480 --> 0:19:57.520 Peters is pushing a tight knit online community with its 0:19:57.560 --> 0:20:02.680 own vocabulary, hierarchies, and in group culture. Check an ideology 0:20:02.680 --> 0:20:07.240 that frames dangerous self harm behaviors as an aspirational lifestyle choice. 0:20:07.320 --> 0:20:12.560 Check pseudoscience justifications for those behaviors. Check practical tips on 0:20:12.600 --> 0:20:16.280 how to harm yourself more effectively. Check tips on evading 0:20:16.520 --> 0:20:21.480 medical scrutiny and parental scrutiny. Check monetization through memberships and 0:20:21.520 --> 0:20:27.240 affiliate products. Check algorithmic amplification pushing vulnerable young people deeper 0:20:27.240 --> 0:20:31.520 and deeper in check. In February twenty twelve, after pressure 0:20:31.520 --> 0:20:34.800 from the National Eating Disorder Association, Tumblr announced it would 0:20:34.840 --> 0:20:38.640 ban blogs that actively promote or glorified self harm, including 0:20:38.680 --> 0:20:42.679 eating disorders, and those communities were not celebrated as like 0:20:43.040 --> 0:20:47.360 a fascinating cultural provocateur right for the most part, they 0:20:47.400 --> 0:20:50.679 were treated as a public health crisis. Like platforms were 0:20:50.680 --> 0:20:53.760 pressured into getting rid of the content. Research was published 0:20:53.760 --> 0:20:56.879 into it journalists covered it as a kind of harm, 0:20:57.359 --> 0:21:01.040 not an interesting cultural spectacle, like what I think that 0:21:01.080 --> 0:21:02.320 we're seeing with Peters. 0:21:02.720 --> 0:21:07.240 Those comparisons are so strong when you lay them out, 0:21:07.320 --> 0:21:11.879 like that is it? You know, after running through that 0:21:11.960 --> 0:21:15.840 long list, it's like, how could anyone not take a 0:21:15.960 --> 0:21:20.800 gender lens to see the different way that Peters and 0:21:20.920 --> 0:21:23.920 Looks Maxing is being treated than it would if he 0:21:24.000 --> 0:21:29.040 were a woman, or not even hypothetically, how the pro 0:21:29.119 --> 0:21:34.639 anorexia movement was treated several years ago. And I know 0:21:34.880 --> 0:21:36.959 you and I talked about this a little bit before 0:21:37.040 --> 0:21:39.560 the show. I just think it's so interesting to think 0:21:39.600 --> 0:21:45.120 about why that different treatment exists for Looks Maxing, which 0:21:45.119 --> 0:21:51.240 seems geared at young men versus the pro anorexia movement, 0:21:51.280 --> 0:21:55.920 which was primarily aimed at young women. And we came 0:21:56.000 --> 0:21:58.399 up with a couple of hypotheses, but know, like really 0:21:58.920 --> 0:22:03.200 clear answer. You know, I would be interested to hear 0:22:03.240 --> 0:22:06.359 from listeners if they have any thoughts about why this 0:22:06.520 --> 0:22:09.919 difference exists. I don't know if you want to appine 0:22:09.920 --> 0:22:11.200 a little bit on it right now. 0:22:11.680 --> 0:22:13.440 Yeah, I mean, this is just my opinion. 0:22:13.520 --> 0:22:15.960 This is for people who are much smarter than me 0:22:16.040 --> 0:22:17.920 to figure out I don't have any kind of inside 0:22:17.920 --> 0:22:18.560 knowledge into this. 0:22:18.640 --> 0:22:20.440 I just want to own this is just my opinion. 0:22:21.119 --> 0:22:21.800 I think that. 0:22:21.960 --> 0:22:26.600 Because it is associated with men and masculinity, it automatically 0:22:26.720 --> 0:22:30.000 is given a different lens or a different framing. 0:22:30.359 --> 0:22:32.800 I think that when men do something. 0:22:32.400 --> 0:22:35.240 It is seen as like a serious thing that has 0:22:36.280 --> 0:22:39.720 serious societal consequences or impact, or that we need to 0:22:39.720 --> 0:22:41.280 be looking at it and treating it in a much 0:22:41.320 --> 0:22:42.280 more serious lens. 0:22:42.520 --> 0:22:44.400 I think it's easier to. 0:22:44.080 --> 0:22:49.760 See young women and girls doing a similar, not entirely identical, 0:22:49.800 --> 0:22:53.960 but a similar thing and saying, oh, those that's unwell behavior, 0:22:54.000 --> 0:22:57.320 that self harm behavior. I think that when it's coming 0:22:57.320 --> 0:22:59.280 from young men and boys, when it's coming from and 0:22:59.320 --> 0:23:02.400 targeted at young men and boys, I think it's easier 0:23:02.400 --> 0:23:04.520 for some people to apply a different lens to it. 0:23:04.800 --> 0:23:07.080 I guess I don't really know why, and I think you. 0:23:07.040 --> 0:23:11.200 Can really see it in how Peters was dealt with 0:23:11.440 --> 0:23:13.119 or not dealt with, depending on how you look at it. 0:23:13.359 --> 0:23:17.280 After he filmed himself injecting peptides into his body into 0:23:17.320 --> 0:23:22.320 his then underaged girlfriend's face, he was temporarily banned from 0:23:22.400 --> 0:23:25.040 Kick and then came back. He got that new York 0:23:25.040 --> 0:23:28.320 Times profile and then he walked in Fashion Week, and 0:23:28.359 --> 0:23:31.080 so I just think that there'd been a woman who 0:23:31.160 --> 0:23:34.840 had done something analogous, I don't think that she would 0:23:34.920 --> 0:23:38.320 get all of this like positive stuff out of it. 0:23:39.280 --> 0:23:41.080 And I also wonder if part of it is that 0:23:41.119 --> 0:23:46.280 we just are aware of the pressure around this kind 0:23:46.320 --> 0:23:48.760 of thing when it comes to girls, but we're less 0:23:48.760 --> 0:23:51.440 aware of it when it comes to young men and boys. 0:23:51.520 --> 0:23:54.119 That we have a framework in our mind for what 0:23:54.160 --> 0:23:56.080