Clavicular Pockets $500,000 Monthly on Looksmaxxing and Stake

How Clavicular Makes (And Spends) $500,000+ Per Month By LooksMaxxing — The Iced Coffee Hour

The Iced Coffee Hour

Clavicular generates over one billion monthly impressions through subsidized Kick clipping campaigns, funding a $400,000 monthly lifestyle centered on looksmaxxing protocols and high-stakes gambling.

AI-assisted summary of How Clavicular Makes (And Spends) $500,000+ Per Month By LooksMaxxing — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published:

Key ideas

  • Clavicular generates over $500,000 monthly through an hourly Kick streaming contract ($1,000/hr), Snapchat stories ($100,000/month), and a casino streaming sponsorship with Stake providing $15,000 daily in betting balance. (93:06)
  • His personal overhead reaches roughly $400,000 per month, covering two Miami penthouses, luxury travel, and a team comprising seven live-in staff members and twelve remote virtual assistants. (103:46)
  • His current pharmacological regimen includes 10 mg retatrutide, 200 mg testosterone weekly, 7.5 mg Accutane daily, 150 mcg Melanotan II, and a 9 mg daily EMSAM patch, incurring roughly $2,500 monthly in compound costs. (9:39)
  • In aesthetic theory, Clavicular argues that 70% of facial attractiveness stems from lean-maxxing down to 10–12% body fat, prioritizing the correction of structural flaws ('failos') over artificial enhancements ('halos'). (33:01)

Detailed notes

## Background Published on July 29, 2026, on YouTube by The Iced Coffee Hour, hosted by Graham Stephan and Jack Selby, this two-hour interview explores how viral streamer and content creator Clavicular built a lucrative personal brand around the "looksmaxxing" subculture. The show notes outline his multi-platform revenue streams, high-stakes lifestyle expenses, and detailed aesthetic and pharmacological protocols.

## TL;DR Clavicular breaks down his rapid rise across Kick and social media, explaining how aggressive viral clipping and gambling partnerships generate over $500,000 monthly against an estimated $400,000 burn rate. He outlines his extensive chemical and aesthetic stack—spanning retatrutide, testosterone, alarplasty, and skincare—while arguing that optimizing facial harmony and reaching 10–12% body fat yield far higher dating returns than incremental wealth gains. Throughout the conversation, he dissects the mathematics of sexual market value, cold approach dynamics, relationship budgeting, and the boundary between rational enhancement and extreme online do-it-yourself culture. He also addresses viral controversies, online feuds, and his own self-ranking among top internet personalities, maintaining that his seemingly reckless streaming persona is systematically engineered.

## Atmosphere & style The dialogue balances clinical analytical detachment with hyper-unfiltered internet culture, creating a surreal blend of pharmacological jargon, dating mathematics, and financial disclosures. Graham Stephan and Jack Selby anchor the episode with grounded curiosity, gently pressing on the absurdity of spending $400,000 a month and injecting gray-market research chemicals while Clavicular delivers deadpan, emotionally flatlined responses. Listening feels like peering into an hyper-optimized algorithmic fishbowl where human aesthetics, social dynamics, and personal vices are treated strictly as engineering variables and monetization channels.

## Bulletin - [01:33:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=5586s) Clavicular generates over $500,000 monthly through an hourly Kick streaming contract ($1,000/hr), Snapchat stories ($100,000/month), and a casino streaming sponsorship with Stake providing $15,000 daily in betting balance. - [01:43:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=6226s) His personal overhead reaches roughly $400,000 per month, covering two Miami penthouses, luxury travel, and a team comprising seven live-in staff members and twelve remote virtual assistants. - [09:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=579s) His current pharmacological regimen includes 10 mg retatrutide, 200 mg testosterone weekly, 7.5 mg Accutane daily, 150 mcg Melanotan II, and a 9 mg daily EMSAM patch, incurring roughly $2,500 monthly in compound costs. - [33:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=1981s) In aesthetic theory, Clavicular argues that 70% of facial attractiveness stems from lean-maxxing down to 10–12% body fat, prioritizing the correction of structural flaws ('failos') over artificial enhancements ('halos').

## Key takeaways - [00:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=53s) Kick subsidized Clavicular's viral clipping campaign, spending roughly $700,000 during a peak month to generate 2.2 billion impressions funneling viewers to Stake. - [06:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=383s) Facial harmony and mid-face ratio dictate male attractiveness far more than marginal increases in height, though height above six feet statistically correlates with higher annual income. - [09:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=579s) A standard $10,000 starter protocol should prioritize gym training, GLP-1 agonists to reach 10–12% body fat, basic skincare, and contrast-enhancing agents rather than premature invasive surgery. - [13:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=837s) Clavicular advocates for practical male cosmetic use, such as tinted SPF and concealed blemish coverage, to immediately eliminate visual flaws without undergoing unnecessary procedures. - [19:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=1181s) Adipose tissue distribution varies significantly in aesthetic impact; storing fat in the face, submental area, or mons pubis causes the most disproportionate aesthetic degradation. - [50:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=3057s) Dermal fillers are categorized as counterproductive because they mimic soft tissue rather than bone, leading to migration and accelerated facial descent over time. - [40:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=2403s) Unregulated DIY looksmaxxing procedures—such as self-administered palatal expanders, at-home canthoplasties, and unmonitored HGH—present extreme medical risks compared to physician-managed protocols. - [58:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=3493s) Preselection functions primarily in female mating psychology rather than male; men seeking long-term relationships are often deterred by women who have excessive public male attention. - [01:02:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=3741s) High rates of sexual intimacy deprivation among young men drive distorted, inflated ratings of female attractiveness on social media due to romantic desperation. - [01:21:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=4862s) Clavicular prefers dating a partner with a modest income over a high earner to ensure domestic focus, establishing a non-scaling $1,500 weekly allowance to curb household micro-waste. - [01:33:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=5586s) The single largest revenue driver in his business is a sponsored online casino deal with Stake that provides a $15,000 daily gambling stake alongside creator incentives. - [01:46:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=6406s) Beyond reaching the top 10–15% in physical aesthetics, further romantic and social ROI yields higher returns through wealth, charisma, and status rather than marginal looks improvements. - [01:59:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=7193s) On an objective sexual market value (SMV) tier list, Clavicular ranks himself near the bottom in D tier, citing that his platform centers on analytical aesthetic knowledge rather than elite personal looks.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=0s) Teaser: An Inside Look at Clavicular's High-Stakes World

The episode opens with a rapid-fire preview capturing the sheer scale, controversy, and excess surrounding the internet personality known as Clavicular. When asked where an everyday person beginning their "journey of ascension" should allocate their capital, Clavicular casually retorts, “The average person's pretty rich.” The montage immediately pivots to news headlines detailing an apparent live-streamed overdose in South Florida that abruptly cut off on camera. When questioned directly about the substances he currently consumes, Clavicular rattles off an intense cocktail of compounds, including 10 mg of retatrutide, testosterone, Accutane, Anadrol, Trenbolone, T2, and minoxidil.

Beyond the extreme pharmaceutical regimen, the preview outlines Clavicular's staggering financial footprint in the streaming ecosystem. He reveals that Kick compensates him roughly $1,000 an hour based on concurrent viewership, while newer monetization streams like Snapchat generate a few thousand dollars per day, accompanied by a gambling sponsorship where he wagers $15,000 daily on Stake. When pressed on his monthly burn rate across his lavish Miami penthouse suites, Clavicular drops a figure that leaves the hosts visibly stunned: an astonishing $400,000 per month.

- **Daily and Hourly Revenue Metrics:** Approximately $1,000 per hour streaming on Kick; several thousand dollars per day on Snapchat; $15,000 per day wagering budget via his gambling deal. - **Reported Monthly Spend:** $400,000 per month across housing and personal overhead. - **Active Substance Stack Mentioned:** Retatrutide (10 mg), testosterone, Accutane, Anadrol, Trenbolone, T2, and minoxidil.

---

[00:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=53s) A Billion Views a Month for $0

Welcomed to *The Iced Coffee Hour*, Clavicular explains the mechanics behind his massive online reach. While pulling in over one billion monthly impressions across short-form platforms, he reveals that his personal clipping spend is exactly zero dollars. Instead, the streaming platform Kick completely subsidizes his distributed clipping campaigns. Because every syndicated video features a prominent watermark directing viewers to his Kick channel, the platform uses his viral clips as a top-of-funnel customer acquisition pipeline to drive user traffic directly onto their website, which heavily funnels users toward Stake gambling.

```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Kick Clipping Funnel accDescr: Flowchart illustrating how Kick finances Clavicular's viral clips to drive traffic to Stake gambling. subgraph Content["Clavicular Stream"] A["Kick Stream"] --> B["Content Clips"] end subgraph Distribution["Kick Campaign ($700K/mo)"] B --> C["Short-Form Reposts"] C --> D["2.2B Monthly Views"] end subgraph Monetization["Platform Traffic"] D --> E["Kick.com/clavicular"] E --> F["Stake Gambling Platform"] end ```

Clavicular notes that Kick offers clipping budgets across its creator roster, but his specific allocation is effectively uncapped. The platform dynamically fluctuates CPM payouts based on overall spend; during one peak month, Kick spent nearly $700,000 on his clips alone, netting an astonishing 2.2 billion views. When asked whether audiences tune in out of fascination with looksmaxxing subculture or sheer curiosity about his personal lifestyle, Clavicular argues that the two have become inseparable. While looksmaxxing originated as an obscure internet movement, he positions himself as the face of the trend, pointing out that mainstream culture has fully adopted the vernacular. Clavicular emphasizes how deeply the subculture has penetrated popular discourse, asserting, “Every kid is using these terms, whether it be you know, the NFL or Netflix.”

- **Clipping Budget Model:** Kick funds short-form clippers directly to funnel traffic to creator links and platform gambling partners. - **Peak Monthly Metric:** Close to $700,000 in platform clipping expenditure resulting in 2.2 billion views in a single month. - **Cultural Saturation:** Looksmaxxing terminology has expanded beyond specialized message boards into references at the Academy Awards and major sports broadcasts.

---

[03:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=192s) Money, Height, or Hair: Which Guy Would You Rather Be?

The conversation shifts to a classic thought experiment comparing three men with sharply contrasting genetic and financial profiles: 1. A man who is 5'4" with $50 million and average traits otherwise. 2. A man who is 5'10", perfectly average across all physical and financial metrics, but exceptionally charismatic and funny. 3. A man who is 6'3", broke, clinically obese, and actively balding.

Clavicular chooses the 5'10" humorous man for immediate, authentic relationship success, but argues that the 5'4" multi-millionaire possesses the highest theoretical ceiling to "ascend" through surgical intervention. With $50 million, a man can fund radical procedures like cosmetic limb-lengthening to compensate for bottom-percentile stature. Clavicular points out that dating apps—where the vast majority of modern couples now meet—allow women to hard-filter by height, leaving men under 6 feet invisible in digital swipe queues. While massive wealth allows a short man to flex social status by hosting women on a 90-foot yacht, Clavicular warns that it rarely cultivates genuine physical desire, resulting instead in transactional, "fake love."

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Genetic and Financial Archetype Evaluation accDescr: Visual breakdown of the three archetypes evaluated by Clavicular based on ascension difficulty and dating outcomes. subgraph Archetypes["Three Hypothetical Profiles"] G1["5'4 Multi-Millionaire ($50M)"] G2["5'10 Funny & Average"] G3["6'3 Obese, Bald & Broke"] end subgraph Paths["Ascension Pathways"] G1 -->|"Limb Lengthening & Status"| O1["High Surgery Ceiling / Transactional Love"] G2 -->|"Charisma & In-Person Rapport"| O2["Most Immediate Authentic Connection"] G3 -->|"GLP-1s & Hair Transplants"| O3["Easy Physical Fix / High Financial Hurdle"] end ```

Conversely, Clavicular views the 6'3" obese and balding man as the easiest physical turnaround thanks to modern biotechnology. Between modern GLP-1 receptor agonists for effortless weight management and advanced hair restoration techniques—such as follicular unit extraction (FUE) transplants or custom hair systems combined with 5-alpha reductase inhibitors—the physical flaws can be resolved quickly. Framing the technological baseline of the present day, Clavicular remarks, “There's really no excuse in 2026, in my opinion, to be overweight.” However, he cautions that once that individual fixes his appearance, his lack of money remains an enormous barrier. Because social media has globalized hypergamy, everyday men are no longer competing against their local peer group within a 20-mile radius, but against globally visible, wealthy influencers and professional athletes possessing identical height advantages alongside multi-million-dollar fortunes.

- **Dating App Filters:** Algorithmic height cutoffs (frequently set at 6'0") structurally exclude shorter men before in-person personality can be demonstrated. - **Physical Remediation Stack:** GLP-1 peptides for leanness, paired with hair systems, transplants, and pharmaceutical protocols to solve balding. - **Globalized Hypergamy:** Digital platforms expand female dating pools worldwide, raising the baseline standard for looks, height, and financial status simultaneously.

---

[06:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=383s) Building the Perfect Man (and Woman) From Scratch

When tasked with engineering the ideal male aesthetic from the ground up, Clavicular insists that everything begins and ends with the facial skeleton. The margin of error on facial harmony is microscopic: an alteration of just a single centimeter in the mid-face ratio alters perceived attractiveness far more dramatically than losing 10 centimeters of vertical height. He defines the ideal mid-face ratio as roughly 1:1, measuring the distance between the pupils against the distance from the pupil line down to the upper lip.

Beyond facial proportions, secondary male traits dictate social hierarchy and evolutionary signaling. Height above 6 feet provides immediate physical safety, significantly reduces female partner anxiety, and correlates with measurable career dividends—Clavicular cites data suggesting that every additional inch of height above 6 feet corresponds to roughly $5,000 in higher average annual earnings. To avoid looking like an unproportional "lanklet"—slang for tall men with narrow shoulder girdles—a man requires an expansive biacromial width, measuring the distance between the acromion processes of the shoulder joints.

When designing the optimal female from scratch, Clavicular maintains that facial harmony remains paramount, criticizing how modern pornography has warped male standards into focusing exclusively on exaggerated physical curves. He highlights the waist-to-hip ratio as the single most critical evolutionary indicator of female fertility. The conversation takes an ironic turn when the hosts highlight that Clavicular places heavy emphasis on female reproductive markers despite having rendered himself chemically sterile through long-term performance-enhancing drug (PED) abuse. Clavicular brushes off the permanence of the damage, asserting that his fertility can be restored on demand through targeted endocrinological protocols: “Well, I mean, I'm infertile as of now, but if with the right fertility protocol, HCG and HMG, um yeah, I'll be able to regain my fertility quite quickly.”

- **Facial Harmony Metric:** A 1:1 mid-face ratio (interpupillary distance relative to pupil-to-upper-lip distance) serves as the primary benchmark for facial proportion. - **Height-Income Correlation:** Each additional inch of stature past 6 feet is estimated to increase annual earning power by roughly $5,000. - **Skeletal Frame Terminology:** Biacromial width (bone-to-bone shoulder span) separates proportionally broad physiques from narrow "lanklet" frames. - **Fertility Reversal Stack:** Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG) and Human Menopausal Gonadotropin (HMG) protocol intended to restore spermatogenesis after chronic PED use.

[09:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=579s) The $10,000 Starter Protocol and Daily Compounds

Discussing the fertility concerns associated with testosterone use, Clavicular downplays the long-term risk, noting that freezing sperm early is an option while young, but pointing out: “The chances are so low that you'll go completely infertile from taking testosterone that it's really not even that important.” When asked how an average person with a $10,000 budget should allocate every dollar to begin their personal “journey of ascension,” Clavicular outlines an entry-level stack: GLP-1 peptides, a gym membership, cosmetic basics like makeup, and tanning compounds such as Melanotan II alongside carotenoids. Addressing skepticism over whether these peptides might be unsafe, he emphasizes that agonism of the glucagon receptor offers broad metabolic advantages, including benefits for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, pointing out that Phase 2 clinical trials have shown high doses of retatrutide—up to 12 mg—to be safe while improving lipid profiles.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Clavicular Daily Chemical and Peptide Regimen accDescr: Diagram grouping Clavicular daily and periodic compounds by physiological function.

subgraph Metabolic ["Metabolism & Appearance"] R["Retatrutide (10 mg every 5 days)"] M2["Melanotan II (150 mcg/day)"] A["Accutane (7.5 mg/day)"] end

subgraph Hormonal ["Hormones & Hair"] T["Testosterone (200 mg/week)"] D["Dutasteride (0.5 mg/day)"] MN["Minoxidil (2.5 mg/day)"] end

subgraph Cardiovascular ["Cardiovascular & Neurological"] C["Tadalafil / Cialis (5 mg/day)"] B["Nebivolol (5 mg/day)"] E["EMSAM / Selegiline (9 mg/day)"] end ```

Clavicular then details the exact regimen he is actively running: 10 mg of retatrutide injected every five days, 200 mg of testosterone, 7.5 mg of Accutane, 150 mcg of Melanotan II daily, 5 mg of tadalafil (Cialis) daily, 5 mg of the beta-blocker nebivolol daily, 2.5 mg of oral minoxidil, 0.5 mg of dutasteride, and a 9 mg daily EMSAM (selegiline) patch. Financed entirely out of pocket without health insurance, the EMSAM patch alone accounts for roughly $2,200 per month, while the rest of his prescription medications total around $300, bringing his monthly intake cost to approximately $2,500. If he were forced to quit cold turkey, he explains that he would plunge into a hypogonadal state taking two to three weeks to restart endogenous production—crashing his energy levels and causing muscle loss—while cessation of minoxidil would result in reduced hair density and thinning eyelashes, though the remainder of the compounds would produce fewer immediately noticeable withdrawal effects.

- **Starter Protocol Recommendations**: GLP-1 peptides (such as retatrutide), gym membership, targeted cosmetic products (concealer/SPF), Melanotan II, and carotenoids. - **Monthly Budget Breakdown**: Approximately $2,500 total ($2,200 for EMSAM/selegiline patches; ~$300 for remaining prescriptions and compounds).

---

[13:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=780s) Sponsor: Northwest Registered Agent

The hosts introduce Northwest Registered Agent, pointing out that many entrepreneurs run side hustles through personal Venmo and Instagram accounts because setting up an entity seems intimidating. For $39 plus state filing fees, Northwest forms LLCs and handles state paperwork, providing an operating agreement, membership certificates, banking resolutions, free domain, business website, dedicated phone line, email, brand protection, and mail forwarding to establish professional legitimacy and keep business finances separated.

---

[13:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=837s) Male Cosmetics: Practical Enhancement vs. The "Metro" Stigma

The conversation shifts back to cosmetics when Clavicular confirms he is currently wearing makeup on set. When pressed on the specifics, he clarifies that he wears a tinted SPF, which sparks a debate over whether sun protection with pigment counts as real makeup. Clavicular argues strongly in favor of normalization, asserting: “I've always been a huge advocate for men's makeup cuz like, why should you have to suffer from horrible skin and acne when an easy solution exists that's been used by women for decades.” He reasons that spot-treating blemishes with a bit of concealer is completely practical and will never be noticed unless someone explicitly announces it on a podcast.

The host counters by describing a hypothetical dating nightmare: bringing a woman back home, only for her to look inside the bathroom cabinet, discover an array of concealers, and experience a record-scratch “plate crash moment” where she views the man as either a fraud or unattractively metrosexual and trying too hard. Clavicular dismisses this reaction as unrealistic and easily mitigated by keeping products tucked inside a drawer. He distinguishes functional skin-clearing products from heavy decorative makeup, stating:

> “If there's something that can make you better looking and more attractive to women, why wouldn't you leverage that?”

The host jokes about the humiliation of wearing running eyeliner and mascara after being rejected at a nightclub, but Clavicular laughs off the scenario as an absurd hypothetical, reiterating his firm stance in favor of "looksmaxxing" and "makeupmaxxing."

---

[17:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=1023s) Irreversible Genetic Disadvantages vs. "Cope"

Turning to the physical limitations of appearance enhancement, the hosts ask which genetic traits are essentially unfixable. Clavicular points to fundamental craniofacial architecture, such as having a tiny skull or short face syndrome, as well as congenital defects resulting from maternal alcohol intake or in-utero Accutane exposure. He acknowledges the harsh social penalties associated with poor structural genetics, noting that while people consciously want to treat others equally, unfair treatment often happens automatically: “It's not really something that you could control if it's in your subconscious.”

When asked what irreversible defect he personally deals with, Clavicular reveals that he has pectus excavatum, a sunken sternum between his pectoral muscles. While surgically treatable via the Nuss procedure—where a curved metal bar is placed inside the chest cavity to lift the breastbone—the procedure requires a six-month recovery period where training is prohibited, carries massive financial costs, and is simply not worth undergoing for a minor physical flaw.

Regarding complaints that he considers to be mere "cope"—excuses people use instead of taking personal accountability—Clavicular argues that muscle insertions or abdominal shapes matter far less in everyday life because they are hidden under clothing. While bodybuilding aesthetics favor balanced insertions, he clarifies that true structural flaws in bone and craniofacial layout carry far more social weight than hidden muscular variations. The host supports this genetic-versus-lifestyle dynamic by citing a recent twin study on male pattern baldness, where the genetically identical twin who smoked, drank, and endured chronic sun exposure and stress suffered noticeable hair thinning, while the brother who maintained a clean, low-stress lifestyle preserved a full head of hair.

[19:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=1181s) The Aging Effects of Smoking, Alcohol, and Problematic Fat Storage

Clavicular emphasizes that smoking and drinking are among the most intensely aging habits anyone can maintain. Smoking directly destroys collagen, accelerating facial aging dramatically. Although people occasionally catch him smoking a cigarette or having a drink during his nightlife content, Clavicular explains that he remains fully aware of what these substances do biologically. Whenever he considers taking a drink, he consciously weighs the consequences in his head—evaluating the neurotoxicity, liver damage, and negative impact on his physical appearance. Keeping those physiological costs at the forefront of his mind helps him strictly limit his overall consumption.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Anatomical Fat Storage Distribution Impact accDescr: Visual flowchart categorizing bodily fat storage areas into severe aesthetic detriments versus benign or favorable zones.

subgraph Unfavorable["Aesthetically Problematic Storage"] direction TB F["Facial Adipose<br/>(Obscures bone definition)"] S["Submental Region<br/>(Turkey neck, poor forward jaw growth)"] W["Waist & Midsection<br/>(Destroys V-taper)"] M["Mons Pubis Fat Pad<br/>(Reduces non-bone-pressed shaft length)"] end

subgraph Favorable["Aesthetically Benign / Favorable Storage"] direction TB G["Glutes"] L["Legs"] A["Arms & Back"] end ```

The discussion shifts to fat distribution, with Jack asking about the worst natural anatomical areas to store adipose tissue, jokingly comparing Elon Musk's barrel chest to his own "wagon" or "caboose." Clavicular notes that storing fat in the face is the absolute worst outcome aesthetically. The submental region—directly beneath the jawline—is a close second, causing a "turkey neck" appearance. While bone structure and oral forward growth play a significant role in creating a sloped neck, submental fat exacerbates the issue. Another severely underrated and brutal fat storage area is the mons pubis; a thick fat pad above the penis obscures the base of the shaft, drastically shortening a man's non-bone-pressed perceived length. Conversely, the best places to store fat are the glutes, legs, arms, and back, as they do not disrupt the physique as severely as midsection or facial fat.

- **Smoking mechanism:** Directly destroys dermal collagen, accelerating skin sagging and fine lines. - **Alcohol toxicity:** Ethanol causes direct neurotoxicity and liver strain, negatively impacting recovery and skin quality. - **Mons pubis impact:** Excess fat in the suprapubic area significantly cuts into perceived and non-bone-pressed penile length. - **Favorable fat zones:** Glutes, legs, arms, and back are far preferable to the face and midsection for maintaining an aesthetic silhouette.

---

[22:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=1338s) Age, ROI on Looksmaxxing, and Starting Protocols

When asked what age looksmaxxing yields the highest return on investment (ROI), Clavicular states that starting as young as possible produces the greatest dividends. He clarifies that this does not mean placing an adolescent on potent experimental peptides like retatrutide, but rather getting the fundamental building blocks right: hitting daily macronutrient targets, consuming high protein, taking baseline supplements, and avoiding toxic lifestyle choices. Clavicular points out a troubling modern trend where teenagers begin drinking alcohol heavily as early as freshman year of high school. Alcohol severely blunts the mTOR signaling pathway—an essential driver of growth, development, and cellular repair—while imposing direct neurotoxic damage during critical developmental years.

Jack and Graham explore what age someone should transition from baseline body awareness into an intentional looksmaxxing routine. Jack recalls being self-conscious about being fat and pale around age 11 and deciding to get sun exposure. Clavicular believes looksmaxxing broadly encompasses anything that improves appearance, but entering high school marks the ideal threshold to establish a serious regimen:

> “I think once you start coming into high school, it's a good idea to start being conscious of your diet, um to start some sort of training uh regimen, uh you know, maybe a a skin care routine.”

Applying daily SPF early in life delivers massive compounding benefits. How early someone starts ultimately comes down to personal maturity, but instituting healthy skin, nutrition, and exercise habits as growth begins offers the highest lifetime ROI.

---

[24:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=1453s) Fixing Failos vs. Creating Halos: When Surgery Makes Sense

Addressing when surgical intervention takes precedence over lifestyle changes, Clavicular articulates a foundational tenet of looksmaxxing theory: the primary objective is eliminating major "failos" rather than attempting to manufacture artificial "halos." If an individual possesses a massive, disproportionate facial flaw—such as an extremely severe nose or severe jaw recession—lifestyle changes and dating advice will not overcome it:

> “So, I think it's just about fixing your failos, not trying to create halos is has always been you know, the general advice from the looks max community.”

Clavicular warns men against overreaching: an individual with an average eye area should not seek orbital implants to try to look like supermodel Sean O'Pry. However, if a person grew up as a chronic mouth-breather with an airway so obstructed that it causes functional sleep apnea alongside a recessed jaw, consulting a maxillofacial surgeon for corrective jaw surgery is an entirely appropriate and practical consideration.

Age also dictates biological limitations. Interventions aimed at delaying growth-plate closure—such as utilizing aromatase inhibitors to block estrogen and extend vertical bone growth—are ineffective once growth plates have fused. While growth plate fusion typically occurs between ages 17 and 18 for most males, it can occasionally extend into the early twenties or finish much earlier depending on the individual.

---

[26:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=1583s) Looks vs. Money: The Illusion of Salary Expectations

Graham asks whether a 45-year-old man who is out of shape should focus primarily on increasing his wealth rather than trying to looksmax. Clavicular strongly pushes back against this idea, arguing that physical optimization provides a far greater and more accessible payoff than chasing extreme income brackets:

> “Going from a six out of 10 to an eight out of 10 um is you know, more of a marginal thing than um but it's going to have a huge, huge um result, you know, much more achievable than going from making $100,000 to a million dollars.”

Clavicular notes that jumping from $100,000 to $1,000,000 a year is completely out of reach for the vast majority of people and yields diminishing returns in personal attraction. Furthermore, social media has heavily skewed women's perception of wealth. Clavicular recounts a recent livestream where an 18-year-old girl from Maryland claimed a man must earn $500,000 per month to qualify to date her.

Graham questions whether street interviews and stream clips featuring outrageous income expectations reflect genuine beliefs or are merely rage-bait designed for viral engagement. Jack points out that guests on livestreams are incentivized to name preposterous figures—like demanding a million dollars a month—to prolong stream banter and attention, whereas stating a normal requirement like $8,000 a month ends the conversation immediately. Clavicular maintains that many young women genuinely harbor these distorted expectations because they are completely detached from real-world living costs and get fooled by high-roller illusions, unaware that flashy lifestyle displays in cities like Miami and Los Angeles are often built on financed leases and posturing.

- **Aesthetic progression:** Moving from a 6/10 to an 8/10 in physical appearance is significantly more attainable and transformative than attempting a tenfold income increase. - **Social media disconnect:** Young dating prospects frequently cite absurd monthly income targets (e.g., $500,000/month) due to social media normalization and financial illiteracy. - **Street poll debate:** Graham considers running a Vegas street poll, predicting the average realistic answer from women on the street is closer to $150,000 per year.

[29:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=1746s) The Illusion of Wealth and What It Costs to Live in Miami

The discussion touches on how people project wealth to impress women, such as taking out an eight-year loan on a $100,000 Corvette to appear rich. When asked whether he would believe a partner who claimed she would still love him if he only made $5,000 a month, Clavicular remains skeptical. He explains that even if a woman doesn't demand expensive dates immediately, she inevitably acclimates to a lifestyle that includes luxury apartments and private jet travel. It is not just about direct credit card spending; it is about the entire environment she gets used to.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Environmental Lifestyle Drift accDescr: Diagram showing how exposure to wealth creates an unsustainable expectation floor. subgraph WealthSignaling["Perception vs Reality"] A["Surface Wealth Signaling<br>(e.g., 8-year auto loan on Corvette)"] --> B["Attracts Partner"] end subgraph LifestyleInflation["Lifestyle Drift"] B --> C["Immersion in Luxury Environment<br>(High-rise apartments, private travel)"] C --> D["Acclimation to High Baseline"] D --> E["Inability to Return to $5K/Month Reality"] end ```

When pushed on whether he would believe someone who had only ever experienced a $5,000-per-month lifestyle and claimed to be completely satisfied with it, Clavicular notes that geography dictates whether that figure is even viable. In a high-cost hub like Miami, that amount falls drastically short of basic sustainability.

“I wouldn't want to live anywhere near Miami for less than $10,000 a month,” Clavicular states, pointing out that basic one- or two-bedroom rents start around $2,000 to $3,000 in Edgewater and quickly hit $5,000 to $6,000 in Brickell or Downtown. Factoring in car payments, groceries, and savings, living there on modest online earnings makes little sense compared to stacking cash in a low-cost region.

- Brickell and Downtown Miami one-to-two-bedroom apartments frequently run between $5,000 and $6,000 per month. - Basic rents in adjacent neighborhoods like Edgewater generally start at $2,000 to $3,000 per month. - Clavicular views moving to Miami upon making early online income as a financial mistake, advising instead to live somewhere with a low cost of living and save.

[30:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=1812s) Sponsor: Whatnot & Monarch

The host introduces Whatnot, highlighting his personal passion for bidding on classic cars, original movie art, and sports collectibles. He conducts a live demonstration on the app, winning auctions for items at just $1 and $4 while explaining features such as live bidding streams, flash sales, direct messaging with sellers, and an upcoming $500 Whatnot credit giveaway for listeners.

The host then transitions to Monarch, reflecting on his longstanding habit of tracking every dollar, skipping coffee runs, and budgeting manually on spreadsheets to build wealth. He praises Monarch’s automated personal finance system, which aggregates investment accounts, categorizes spending, maps future purchases, and features an AI assistant to analyze past travel expenses, flag net worth changes, and project savings goals.

[33:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=1981s) Diminishing Returns, Getting Lean, and Facial Contrast

The conversation turns to the limits of physical self-improvement and when optimization yields diminishing returns. Clavicular breaks aesthetic improvement down into a clear hierarchy, arguing that roughly 70% of an individual's potential aesthetic gains come strictly from lean maxing—reducing overall body fat percentage.

“10 to 12% body fat, yep. And creating contrast is a key thing as well,” Clavicular explains when asked for the single best piece of advice for the average man aged 18 to 35. Beyond body fat, he attributes roughly 20% of visual impact to "coloring"—optimizing tan, hair color, and darkness of features—with the remaining margin split between muscle physique and baseline skin health.

| Aesthetic Factor | Estimated Share of Impact | Primary Levers | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **Body Fat / Lean Maxing** | ~70% | Reaching 10%–12% body fat, revealing jawline and bone structure | | **Coloring / Contrast** | ~20% | Skin tan level, hair dying, eyebrow tinting, sclera whiteness | | **Physique & Skin Quality** | ~10% | Muscle mass, acne management, skin tone uniformity |

Evaluating the host's facial structure, Clavicular advises against tinting his eyebrows because they are already dark enough. Instead, he points out that a deeper facial tan would dramatically improve contrast against his blue eyes and the sclera (the white portion of the eyes), which acts as a fundamental sub-conscious marker of health.

[35:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=2148s) Managing Hyperpigmentation, Sun Damage, and Facial Aging

The host shares his hesitations about tanning, noting that he uses eye drops to keep his sclera bright but worries about sun exposure worsening a persistent patch of melasma that has been visible on his skin for three to four years. Clavicular cautions that using Melanotan would likely worsen localized hyperpigmentation rather than fix it, recommending targeted high-spectrum SPF with a PA+++ rating or clinical laser intervention instead.

The discussion then covers the physiological drivers of facial aging. While the host assumes sun spots and skin drooping are driven solely by the loss of subdermal fat, Clavicular clarifies the structural biology behind sagging skin.

“What starts to occur is you lose elastin, which keeps everything in place, and gravity takes course and it migrates down,” Clavicular explains, pointing out that this loss of structural elasticity causes facial tissue to drift downward over time, creating pronounced nasolabial folds and prominent jowls rather than simple volume loss. The host then brings up a trip to South Korea, where he sought advanced skincare treatments to address his melasma.

[38:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=2283s) The $3,500 Korean Skincare Session

Jack shares a wild anecdote about a high-end skincare clinic visit in South Korea. While accompanying a friend who had an extensive list of procedures recommended and simply opted for "everything," Jack was asked what he wanted and decided on a whim to follow suit. Unfamiliar with the local currency conversion at the register, he tapped his Apple Pay to discover a bill of $3,500. The clinic ended up staying open past normal hours for roughly eight hours to complete the extensive lineup of treatments on him. The staff carried out multiple laser treatments across his face—one designed to lift the facial muscles to prevent jowls, and another targeting fine wrinkles by burning them off. They also injected collagen, Botox, and an additional unidentified substance, alongside performing microneedling. At one point, Jack felt deep tugging as a needle moved beneath his skin, which Clavicular identifies as likely being PDO threads. Jack admits he almost quit roughly a dozen times because the process was so uncomfortable, bloody, and disorienting, noting he had numbing cream sitting on his face for hours without even fully understanding the forms he had signed.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Jack's $3,500 Korean Clinic Protocol accDescr: Outline of the procedures Jack received during an 8-hour skincare session in South Korea.

subgraph Procedures ["Treatments Performed"] L1["Muscle-Lifting Laser<br>(Jowl prevention)"] L2["Ablative/Wrinkle Laser<br>(Surface rejuvenation)"] INJ["Injectables<br>(Botox, Collagen, Fillers)"] MN["Microneedling & PDO Threads<br>(Mechanical skin tightening)"] end

subgraph Reaction ["Jack's Experience"] R1["$3,500 via Apple Pay"] R2["8 Hours Past Closing"] R3["Near-quitting pain & confusion"] end

Procedures --> Reaction ```

Clavicular assesses that while a significant portion of the med spa industry consists of "cope," specific treatments yield tangible physiological results. Microneedling stimulates collagen production and assists with hair growth, while heavy-duty lasers produce dramatic structural changes if one is willing to endure the downtime. Addressing the trade-offs of aggressive skin resurfacing, Clavicular highlights:

> “Like ablative CO2 laser. Like yeah, you're going to have to stay out of the sun and stay inside probably about 3–4 weeks, but the results are going to be like tremendous compared to like the fractional CO2 laser that you heal in a week, its results aren't as pronounced, you know?”

- Jack spent $3,500 on an eight-hour session of combined laser treatments, injections (Botox and collagen), microneedling, and possible PDO thread manipulation. - Ablative CO2 lasers require a 3–4 week indoor recovery period out of sunlight but produce far superior outcomes compared to milder fractional lasers.

---

[40:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=2403s) How Much Research Before Peptides, And The Dangerous DIY Stuff

Impressed by Clavicular’s grasp of pharmacology and biochemical mechanisms at only twenty years old, the hosts ask how he accumulated this knowledge. Clavicular explains that during high school he was not particularly social, spending hours on his computer reading medical literature. He continues to spend about an hour each day reviewing new research papers, emphasizing that peer-reviewed control groups and pharmacokinetics matter far more than reading anecdotes on Reddit or Twitter. When asked how long an average person should study before starting compounds like GLP-1 receptor agonists (such as tirzepatide or retatrutide), Clavicular states that a solid foundational understanding can be built in just a few hours—particularly because an overseeing doctor should ultimately handle prescriptions and dosing.

The conversation pivots to the alarming and dangerous extremes of DIY looksmaxxing circulating online. Clavicular reveals that he has seen individuals attempt self-administered surgeries, including people trying to screw maxillary skeletal expanders (MSE) into their own palate, cutting open their own glandular tissue to perform home gynecomastia removals, and even using knives to perform self-canthoplasty by slitting their medial canthus. Clavicular stresses that attempting medical interventions without licensed supervision or basic physiological awareness can ruin a person's health:

> “So whereas a doctor would come in and make sure to clarify that and make sure they understand fully how to use these things.”

| Compound / Procedure | Unsupervised DIY Risk | Proper Medical Context | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **Maxillary Skeletal Expander (MSE)** | Severe structural/palate trauma from self-screwing | Installed and adjusted by an orthodontist | | **Gynecomastia Removal** | Sepsis, severe disfigurement, tissue damage from home excision | Surgical resection under sterile conditions | | **Medial Canthoplasty** | Irreversible ocular mutilation via DIY cuts | Oculoplastic surgeon precision | | **Human Growth Hormone (HGH)** | Pre-diabetes caused by pinning around high-carb meals | Dosing managed alongside blood glucose monitoring | | **Testosterone** | Severe hair loss due to unmanaged DHT conversion | Supervised TRT balanced against biomarkers |

---

[44:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=2649s) Trying Too Hard, Genetic Outliers, And The 128 IQ Test

The hosts ask Clavicular whether someone can actually become less attractive by trying too hard, pointing out that an obsession with physical optimization is often interpreted as blatant insecurity. Clavicular agrees that overdoing certain fitness tropes—such as eating 12 meals a day in a massive caloric surplus while blasting 500 mg of testosterone—leaves men fat, balding, and covered in acne, whereas subtle testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) combined with body recomposition looks significantly better. Addressing the perception of insecurity, he argues that taking visual optimization seriously is simply a rational response to empirical realities, such as dating metrics where the top 20% of male profiles capture the majority of attention, or hiring data showing that attractive candidates consistently beat out better-qualified competitors.

When the discussion shifts to intellectual capability and whether anyone can succeed as a tech founder, Clavicular pushes back against the common advice that college is worthless, pointing out that modern culture overestimates the cognitive capabilities of the general public:

> “They're genetic outliers with typically above average IQ.”

He refuses to disclose or speculate on his own IQ score, noting that online tests are meaningless because people repeatedly take them until they get a flattering result rather than taking a proctored test at an official testing center. Jack then admits that he repeatedly prodded ChatGPT to evaluate his intelligence based on their conversational history until the AI assigned him an IQ of 128. Clavicular and Jack joke that 128 is the ultimate flattering number for an AI to feed a user—high enough to feel distinctly superior, yet modest enough to appear grounded and believable rather than cartoonish.

[47:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=2842s) The 128 IQ ChatGPT Test and IQ Maxing

The conversation opens with a discussion on IQ scores and self-perception. Clavicular notes that getting a score that is not discouringly low tends to placate people and keep them grounded, while also being believable. Graham Stephan and Jack Selby share a curious coincidence: when Jack prompted ChatGPT repeatedly to estimate his IQ, it eventually assigned him a score of 128. Graham tried the exact same prompt, and another creator, Justin Allen, did as well—and all three received the exact score of 128. They challenge the viewers to prompt ChatGPT honestly to see if everyone gets the same number. Clavicular explains why he avoids the topic entirely:

> “I get asked that question a fair bit and I'll always just refuse it cuz I think it's just a silly you know game that people play with themselves.”

When asked whether IQ is important, Clavicular agrees it is “extremely” vital and points out that one can actually pursue "IQ maxing." He explains that individuals can stimulate neurogenesis and build new brain synapses through compounds like Dihexa and Cerebrolysin, as well as use nootropics to extend attention span and boost productivity. The hosts debate whether women find knowledge or intelligence more attractive. While Jack initially thinks practical knowledge is more appealing, Clavicular argues intelligence is far superior: knowledge is merely knowing facts—like reciting state capitals or telling stories about ancient Greece—whereas intelligence is the core pattern-recognition and decision-making engine. “If your decision-making and your understanding of, you know, just the world is severely damaged, then all these cool stories and little facts that you know don't really mean anything,” Clavicular observes.

- **ChatGPT IQ result**: Jack Selby, Graham Stephan, and Justin Allen all received an identical score of 128 when repeatedly pressured for an estimate. - **Nootropic & peptide stack for IQ**: Dihexa and Cerebrolysin for neurogenesis, alongside various nootropics to improve attention span and productivity.

---

[50:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=3057s) Overrated Procedures, Fillers, and Clavicular’s Rhinoplasty

Turning back to cosmetic procedures, Clavicular singles out popular treatments that he considers ineffective or actively harmful. He dismisses PDO threads as “pretty cope,” but labels facial filler as the absolute worst option available. He explains that filler is designed to replicate soft tissue rather than bone; injecting massive quantities into the jaw or cheekbones simply causes the filler to migrate within two weeks, leaving the patient looking worse off ("cosmetically descended"). Clavicular emphasizes that he has never used filler and never will.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Bone Augmentation vs Soft Tissue Filler accDescr: Diagram illustrating why dermal fillers fail when used to simulate bone structure.

subgraph Problem["Dermal Fillers on Bone Structure"] A["Injecting filler into jawline or cheekbones"] --> B["Filler mimics soft tissue, not rigid bone"] B --> C["Material migrates after ~2 weeks"] C --> D["Cosmetically descended appearance"] end

subgraph Solution["Targeted Anatomical Surgery"] E["Alarplasty / Rhinoplasty"] --> F["Non-invasive reduction of nostril width"] F --> G["Restores harmonious mouth-to-nose ratio"] end ```

The hosts bring up Clavicular's recent nose surgery, noting that post-op internet clips made him look badly botched and miserable, whereas in person the difference is subtle and natural. Clavicular reveals that the procedure was strictly an alarplasty—reducing the nostril width by a few millimeters without altering the nasal bone—to balance his mouth-to-nose ratio. The alarming post-op videos were the result of normal surgical swelling combined with having had wisdom teeth removed and ear surgery performed in the same window, leaving his face puffy, his nose casted, and his ears bruised black and blue. He notes that full rhinoplasty swelling takes an entire year to resolve, and at just five weeks out, his results will continue to improve. Currently, he wears Invisalign (taking it out only for interviews) and has no more surgeries planned.

> “Filler is actually going to cosmetically descend people in a lot of cases because it's meant to replicate soft tissue. It's not meant to replicate bone.”

---

[53:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=3196s) Sponsor: Cash App

Graham Stephan introduces the sponsor, Cash App. He highlights the drawback of traditional debit cards, which function passively without giving anything back. In contrast, Cash App allows users to send money, monitor spending, and personalize their debit card. Graham details the Cash App Green status program: spending at least $500 monthly unlocks benefits such as up to $200 in free overdraft coverage without hidden fees, higher borrow limits, and personalized cashback offers released every Friday. New customers can receive a $10 bonus by entering code `cashapp10` during profile signup and sending $5 to a friend within 14 days.

---

[55:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=3332s) What Men Seek in Women and the Female Beauty Standard

The discussion shifts from male aesthetics to what men genuinely value in romantic partners. Clavicular asserts that modesty and respectability are paramount for men because a partner reflects directly on the man himself:

> “Your girlfriend is an extension of you and vice versa.”

He elaborates that even if a man is entirely polite and respectful, having an obnoxious, poorly mannered girlfriend at a dinner table damages his own reputation. Graham and Jack then compare universal aesthetic benchmarks: while Henry Cavill and Matt Bomer are frequently cited as the twin pinnacles of male attractiveness, they ask Clavicular who represents the equivalent standard for women. Clavicular reflects on the paradox of the industry: female fashion models earn significantly more money than male models, yet the overwhelming majority of intense online discussion, rating frameworks, and looksmaxxing forums remain heavily centered around men.

[56:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=3404s) The Golden Ratio for Women vs. Men and Phenotypic Subjectivity

The conversation explores how looksmaxxing—historically a male-centered subculture focused on male aesthetics—applies to female facial analysis. Clavicular notes that early 2000s Victoria's Secret models, such as Tom Brady’s ex-wife Gisele Bündchen, score among the highest in objective facial harmony. However, personal tastes still vary based on coloring and phenotype. When challenged on whether looksmaxxing claims to be purely objective science, Clavicular clarifies that subjective preferences emerge in how individuals weigh contrast and coloring. He contrasts Adriana Lima with Gisele: Adriana Lima has slightly worse mathematical facial ratios than Gisele, but she creates a much more striking visual impact due to high-contrast features—piercing blue eyes, tan skin, and dark hair—whereas Gisele’s fair skin and blonde hair present a lower-contrast appearance, even though both share remarkably high harmony scores.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Golden Ratio Comparison by Gender accDescr: Visualizing differences in facial geometry expectations between men and women. subgraph Male["Male Facial Standard"] M1["Mid-face Ratio: ~1.0"] M2["Sharp, Angular Jawline"] M3["Tall, Defined Chin Height"] end subgraph Female["Female Facial Standard"] F1["Shorter Mid-face: ~1.1"] F2["Softer Jaw Contour"] F3["Lower Chin Height"] end ```

The hosts raise the question of what happens if male golden-ratio standards are mapped onto a female face, observing that applying sharp jawlines and 1:1 ratios would yield an overtly masculine result. Clavicular confirms that the geometric expectations differ: women require shorter mid-faces (around a 1.1 ratio rather than 1.0), softer jawlines, and shorter chin heights to maintain feminine facial harmony.

- Gisele Bündchen ranks near the top mathematically for facial harmony, though her lower-contrast coloring yields a less immediately striking look than high-contrast models. - Adriana Lima features lower mathematical ratio precision than Gisele, but scores high in perceived attractiveness due to intense feature contrast (piercing blue eyes against dark hair and tanned skin). - Female golden-ratio standards specify a softer, shorter jaw and chin profile compared to the sharp, tall mandibular framework expected of men.

[58:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=3493s) Social Media Distortion, Viral Appeal, and Preselection

The hosts ask how social media warps male attraction, with Clavicular pointing primarily to pornography and heavy photo editing. The discussion turns to figure skater Alysa Liu, whose viral post-Olympics social media edits took over algorithmic feeds. The host points out that while Alysa Liu might objectively rate as a 6.5 or 7 under rigid facial harmony formulas, men online passionately hailed her as a 10/10. Clavicular attributes this viral adoration to an accessible “girl next door” appeal, noting that high-level athletic success combined with cuteness creates a disarming shock value compared to traditional runway models. He argues that when casual viewers award a 10/10, they are not rating facial geometry:

> “It's more so, in my opinion, them saying, my life would be perfect if I had this girl.”

The discussion moves to whether men crave what other men desire through herd mentality. Clavicular rejects the idea that preselection operates strongly in men, asserting that preselection is predominantly a female psychological mechanism. When a woman sees a man walking with an attractive woman, she wonders what status or traits he holds, sparking intrigue. In contrast, Clavicular argues that a woman being chased by everyone or having a history of dating numerous high-profile celebrities often serves as a deterrent rather than an asset to men looking for a relationship.

[01:02:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=3741s) The Desperation Factor and the All-Stat Maxing Approach

Clavicular argues that the inflation of women's attractiveness scores by everyday men is fueled by epidemic levels of male loneliness rather than genuine appreciation for aesthetics. Citing that roughly two-thirds of men aged 18 to 21 report having had no sexual intimacy in the preceding six months, he explains:

> “The objective looks because a lot of people are just rating these girls super highly out of desperation.”

When men lack access to relationships, any perceived connection—whether parasocial, shared religious beliefs, or an appealing personality—causes them to conflate non-physical compatibility with a 10/10 physical score. Clavicular concedes that dating is not purely shallow; a shared religion, compatible values, and admired personality traits inevitably increase genuine attraction. The analytical problem arises when men project those interpersonal qualities back onto facial geometry, distorting objective ratings.

When asked what actually makes a man as datable as possible, Clavicular dismisses reliance on single attributes in favor of comprehensive self-improvement across the board:

> “So just every single stat that you can possibly max, do it. That's how you become datable.”

- A reported two-thirds of young adult males (ages 18–21) report prolonged dry spells without intimacy, driving romantic inflation and desperation ratings. - Datability requires total optimization across status, career, income, looks, and knowledge rather than leaning on one pillar alone.

[01:05:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=3921s) How Clavicular Met His Girlfriend

The topic shifts from dating theory to Clavicular's personal life. The host asks how he applied his criteria to pick his current romantic partner. Clavicular reveals that his relationship came together almost immediately: he met his girlfriend at a nightclub, invited both her and her friend back to his place that same evening, and she moved into his residence just a few days later.

[01:05:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=3950s) How He Met His Girlfriend and Her Friend

Clavicular reveals that when he first met his current girlfriend, he brought both her and her friend back and slept with both of them simultaneously. When asked when he decided between the two, he admits it happened almost immediately because the friend had an off-putting post-club body odor. While he remarked that he understood it—joking that his own anatomy has smelled significantly worse—the smell served as the clear deciding factor to isolate communications and pursue only the girlfriend. He mentions that throughout the entirety of his career, he has basically always had a girlfriend.

When the hosts ask whether hooking up with both women fractured their friendship, Clavicular claims the opposite: “Makes girls better friends. That’s why I always ask two girls. I’m like, 'Are you guys friends?' They’re like, 'Yeah.' I’m like, 'Do you want to be really good friends?'” He estimates that he has tried this approach about two dozen times with roughly a 50% success rate, noting that it is not a random shot in the dark; you can usually read whether two friends are open to it beforehand. Regarding whether this happens live on camera, Clavicular explains that visible cameras actually work against him. Women will actively try to reject him on stream just to produce a viral clip at his expense, whereas hidden camera setups from across the street prove women are far more receptive when no camera is present.

[01:08:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=4102s) Cheating, Tattoo Apologies, and Begging at the Bar

Ten minutes after hooking up with both women, Clavicular kicked the friend out. He later discovered she was cheating on an existing partner. He explains his strict rule: “I always will kick out the girl if I got find out they're cheating, you know.” In an absurd twist typical of Miami nightlife, the friend ended up staying with her boyfriend and got his name tattooed on her body as an apology. The hosts recall another viral clip where Clavicular was talking to a woman at a bar in New York, and her boyfriend physically approached him, begging him not to take her number. Clavicular reflects on the weakness of that dynamic: “If you have to like beg your girl like oh stop you know go up to other guys be like stop talking to my girl. It’s like bro, it’s not your girl. Like she’s going.”

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Relationship Leverage and Outcomes accDescr: A flow diagram showing how having options prevents manipulation in dating, contrasting the insecure begging approach with walking away.

subgraph Reactive["Insecure Dynamic"] A["Girl openly entertains other men"] --> B["Boyfriend begs men to stop / stays out of fear of loneliness"] B --> C["Lost respect, chronic heartbreak, and repeated infidelity"] end

subgraph Abundance["High-Leverage Dynamic"] D["Partner aware you have other options"] --> E["Boundary enforcement: immediate walkaway upon disrespect"] E --> F["Self-respect maintained; better single than humiliated"] end ```

Clavicular notes that if a woman is openly entertaining conversations with other men right in front of her partner, the relationship is already cooked. Rather than crashing out in rage, he believes a man should view catching it as a favor, because finding out sooner is always better. When asked why men stay in such humiliating scenarios, Clavicular points to desperation: men would rather endure infidelity and disrespect than deal with loneliness and being single. He argues that leverage in a relationship stems from having visible options, because when a woman knows a man can easily walk away, she will not attempt to step over his boundaries. His blunt advice to men trapped in those dynamics is straightforward: “You got to just like realize that you’re better off being single than being in a situation where your heart is constantly broken and a girl is just completely like all over you.”

[01:12:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=4355s) Objectivity vs. Misogyny, Red Pill, and Dating Dynamics

The discussion moves into broader relationship frameworks, including whether modern dating is an endless cat-and-mouse power struggle. Clavicular expresses fatigue with typical red pill spaces because so many commentators drift into unfiltered bitterness and misogyny. Asked where he draws the line between objective reality and hatred of women, he explains:

> “If there’s a statistic out there something about the amount of sexual partners either gender will have on average and like in you’re citing these statistics like I don’t think that really makes you misogynistic. I think that just like makes you going over you know the state of the dating market. But, if you’re going out and you’re only like spreading these facts about like how women are acting and you know with no calling of attention towards like the fact that maybe this generation of men isn’t the greatest either. A lot of them are financially dispositioned. So, it kind of makes sense for women to only want to go for like the top profiles. Like, I think you just kind of need to realize what’s wrong with both sides.”

When asked about *Fresh & Fit* co-host Myron Gaines, Clavicular states he has appeared on the *After Hours* show frequently and respects much of what Gaines articulates. Defining misogyny strictly as the genuine hatred of women, Clavicular defends Gaines against the label, concluding that Gaines simply acknowledges traditional gender roles where men lead and women serve in an emotionally supportive capacity. Finally, Clavicular confirms that he and his current girlfriend have been dating since April.

[01:14:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=4463s) Infidelity, Monogamy, and Tattoos

When asked directly if he and his girlfriend are monogamous, Clavicular admits that he has hooked up with other women: “You know, I'd be lying if I said I haven't gotten with another girl, you know.” He insists he does not hide this from her because he refuses to lie. In explaining how his partner handles this, he draws a sharp line between emotional intimacy and physical urge: “I mean, like, at the end of the day, there's a difference between like sex and love, right? I think women I kind of understand to a degree that men could just like have sex with a random girl and it's just a release.” When the hosts question whether having open options diminishes his ability to love his girlfriend deeply, Clavicular concedes it might be possible, but notes that these incidents are not premeditated: he goes out to a club, gets drunk, and slips up. He views these actions as a consequence of being immature and “being an idiot like adjusting to fame,” rather than a lifestyle he wants to sustain long term. He adds that his girlfriend likely assumed this behavior would happen given the chaotic circumstances of their initial meeting.

Turning to the subject of relationship amends, Clavicular makes it clear he would never get a tattoo of her name as an apology because he is strongly anti-tattoo. While his girlfriend has tattoos, he mentions that he does not personally prefer them, though he is noncommittal on whether he would ever pay to have them removed.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Clavicular Relationship Dynamics accDescr: Flowchart illustrating Clavicular's view on relationships, casual infidelity, and monogamy boundaries. subgraph Mindset["Underlying Beliefs"] A["Sex vs. Love Distinction"] -->|"Men view sex as purely physical release"| B["No Emotional Betrayal in His View"] C["Full Transparency"] -->|"Refuses to lie to his partner"| B end

subgraph Circumstance["Club Incidents"] D["Going Out & Drinking"] --> E["Adjusting to Fame & Poor Discipline"] E --> F["Casual Infidelity"] end

subgraph Outlook["Future Resolution"] B --> G["Partner Expected Turbulence"] F --> H["Immature Phase Not Intended to Last"] end ```

[01:16:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=4569s) 10,000 Cold Approaches and the Mechanics of Rejection

Clavicular confesses that despite being in a relationship, he still goes up to women in public simply for “entertainment” and to see if he still has his touch. Over his entire life, he estimates he has approached roughly 10,000 attractive women, recalling nights in college where he would fire off as many as 200 approaches in a single outing. Rather than burning out, he finds that his performance usually peaks around approach 150. When pressed on his opening line in clubs, he admits that he skips small talk entirely and goes straight to the point, bluntly asking women: “Like, do you want to come back to to my place?” When asked about streaming these approaches, he jokes that if he simply accepted every woman who agreed to go home with him immediately, his live streams would last only 45 minutes before hitting his end goal.

The discussion shifts to how to read reactions and minimize bad rejections. Clavicular emphasizes that painful or embarrassing interactions happen almost exclusively when men cannot read body language. He distinguishes between clear signs of disinterest versus polite excuses:

- **IODs (Indications of Disinterest):** Unreceptive body language, such as someone physically turning their torso away from you, or delivering polite excuses like "I'm with my friends." He stresses that if a woman genuinely wants to go home with someone, she works around her friends rather than using them as a logistical wall. Clavicular advises men to immediately disengage the moment disinterest appears: “And I think it's perfectly fine to cold approach like all the time as long as you're super respectful about like, okay, this person is not interested whatsoever. Disengage.” - **IOIs (Indications of Interest):** Maximizing approach success relies on spotting pre-existing cues, such as direct eye contact and a warm smile, before ever initiating a conversation. Cold-approaching women who are looking at their phones with zero awareness yields drastically lower odds.

Despite thousands of repetitions, Clavicular refuses to label himself a pickup master. He credits his modern dating success to looksmaxxing and social media fame rather than elite conversational charm. If he could improve his game, he notes he would focus on talking less with his hands and developing richer conversational depth rather than relying on rapid-fire blunt openers.

[01:21:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=4862s) Partner Income and the Attractiveness Hierarchy

When asked if he would ever date a woman who out-earns him, Clavicular laughs it off initially with “Find me one,” before explaining that while he wouldn't strictly oppose it, it remains mathematically improbable given his current earnings. However, when presented with the choice between a career-driven high earner and a woman making $50,000 a year, he strongly prefers the latter. In his view, extreme professional ambition directly conflicts with family life: “You don't want your girl's attention to be anywhere else than the relationship, in my opinion. And like, you know, potentially if you have a family in the future, like you don't want a girl who's, you know, super dedicated to like a career or like a a startup when, you know, you have you have two newborn kids.”

The hosts then ask him to answer one of his own signature questions: whether he is better or worse looking than his girlfriend. Clavicular immediately dodges, refusing to answer on the record. As the hosts tease him about his hesitation, he simply replies, “I think my girlfriend's very pretty. And that's all I'm going to say.” He argues that once romantic feelings and personality enter the equation, true physical objectivity breaks down, though he maintains he would have no issue dating a partner who is noticeably more attractive than himself.

[01:23:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=4985s) The Relationship Attractiveness Trap and Graham’s “Service to Humanity”

The conversation turns to the uncomfortable social dynamic of rating one’s partner compared to oneself. Clavicular points out that asking someone whether they or their significant other is more attractive is an absolute trap. Clavicular explains, “Even if the answer is not out of ego and it's like purely purely objective and you're like, okay, like her and you know, you mapped out every single point of every person's face and then you said that you think either your girlfriend or yourself is more attractive then you just look like an asshole quite frankly.” The question is designed purely as an honesty test to see if someone will give a brutally blunt appraisal or attempt to soften the blow.

Jack immediately springs the question on Graham, asking whether he considers himself better or worse looking than his wife. Graham answers without hesitation that he is the worse-looking one, viewing it as a massive victory rather than a blow to his self-esteem. As Graham puts it, “If you can get someone who's better looking than you, I think that's that's a compliment because then genetically, I've just basically maxed out your offspring if they're better looking.” He jokes that by doing so, he has performed a noble service for the future of humanity. Clavicular shrugs off the trap for himself by simply noting that his girlfriend is exceptionally attractive, making comparisons irrelevant.

[01:24:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=5089s) The Role of Female Energy and the $1,500 Weekly Budget

When asked what he actually values in his relationship, Clavicular tends to keep his private life guarded, but explains that having a girlfriend provides a grounding domestic presence that male friends cannot replicate. While working long hours at his computer, simply having his partner sitting on the couch behind him creates a calming environment. He views female energy as fulfilling an essential psychological role, distinct from standard companionship, helping to alleviate the isolation that can come from intense work routines.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Household Expense Budgeting System accDescr: Structure of the weekly discretionary allowance and food efficiency rules. subgraph Allowance ["Discretionary Allowance"] A["Monthly Base: $6,000"] --> B["Weekly Budget: $1,500"] B --> C["Personal Purchases (Clothes, Gear)"] end subgraph HouseRules ["Expense Efficiency Rules"] D["DoorDash Restrictions"] --> E["Eliminate $50 Single-Item Orders"] E --> F["Batch Ordering (e.g. 7 smoothies at once)"] G["In-House Staff"] --> H["Full-time Maid Cooks Meals / Waffles"] end ```

The hosts bring up a viral clip where Clavicular reprimanded his girlfriend for exceeding a $1,500 weekly allowance after she spent $1,800 on a camera. Clavicular defends setting strict financial guardrails for a partner who does not work. Clavicular asserts, “You know, obviously if you say to a girl like, 'I don't want you to have a job and like I want you to focus on like the relationship,' then it's your obligation to like, you know, take care of them and support them.” He stresses that providing $6,000 every month in pure discretionary spending—when rent, bills, and utilities are already fully covered—is more money than most working individuals take home.

- The allowance does not scale upward if his personal earnings jump from $1 million to $20 million annually; it is treated as a fixed ceiling based on realistic living needs. - The rule was instituted primarily to eliminate thoughtless micro-waste, such as spending $50 on delivery fees and tips for a single $5 smoothie on DoorDash instead of ordering seven at once to stock the fridge or cooking meals at home. - Regarding an earlier comment on the *Fresh and Fit* podcast about wanting fresh waffles made in the morning, Clavicular clarifies that his girlfriend does not make them; his morning meals are prepared by a live-in maid.

[01:28:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=5311s) Managing an In-House Team, Gambling Mistakes, and Tight Margins

Clavicular works constantly, filling almost every waking hour from morning until night. To facilitate this output, he maintains a sizable operational infrastructure at his house, which Jack and Graham praise for its professional studio lighting, overhead rigs, and seamless background operations. His organization includes approximately seven staff members who live and work alongside him in person, supplemented by another dozen remote virtual assistants. While his primary cameraman has worked with him since he first started streaming, Clavicular recently brought in an executive to act as CEO, taking over business development as well as hiring and firing responsibilities.

When asked about his worst financial blunders, Clavicular admits to occasionally self-depositing his own funds into online casinos for personal gambling sessions, including a single spin worth $60,000. Although his net losses from self-depositing total around $20,000—a modest sum against his gross business revenue—he expresses frustration with the mistake because it violates his philosophy of disciplined operational margins. Clavicular points out, “So, yeah, no, like when people hear the thing about like oh, a $6,000 budget a month, they'll be like oh, Clavicular, like don't you make this? Like why are you, you know, being so so strict about it? And it's like strict about it. That's like an insane amount of money, $6,000 to spend when you have no bills.”

[01:30:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=5441s) Business Lessons and Revenue Streams: Kick, Gambling, and Snapchat

Reflecting on the most valuable business lesson he has accumulated, Clavicular emphasizes interpersonal compatibility over short-term revenue gains. Early in his career, he attempted to enter deals with people he disliked or mistrusted simply to grow his income, but found that those arrangements inevitably fell apart in acrimony. Clavicular states, “The relationships you make with people are extremely extremely important, right? Like and not doing business with people that you just don't trust and you know, you don't get along with.”

```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Primary Income Streams Breakdown accDescr: Overview of Clavicular's main digital revenue sources. subgraph Streaming ["Live Content"] A["Kick Hourly Contract"] -->|"Paid by CCV & hours"| B["Live Revenue"] C["Casino Partnerships"] -->|"Major baseline driver"| B end subgraph ShortForm ["Social Monetization"] D["X / Twitter Creator Payouts"] E["Snapchat Stories"] -->|"Ad revenue on photos"| F["$3,000+/day (~$100k/mo)"] end ```

He breaks down his operational revenue across several distinct channels: - **Casino Sponsorships:** Direct gambling partnership deals represent one of the largest single components of his overall cash flow. - **Kick Streaming Contracts:** Live streaming remuneration on Kick, structured around guaranteed hourly payouts linked directly to average concurrent viewership (CCV). - **Short-Form Ad Monetization:** Ad revenue generated from impressions on X (formerly Twitter). - **Snapchat Public Profile:** A fast-growing revenue stream that generates several thousand dollars per day—roughly $100,000 per month—primarily from posting still photographs throughout the day, handled entirely by a team member.

[01:32:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=5521s) Snapchat Watch Time and Kick Hourly Payouts

The conversation opens with Clavicular explaining how his Snapchat content is managed and monetized. He has an operator handling the account who takes photos and posts them. When asked about views, Clavicular notes that Snapchat monetization revolves heavily around watch time and how many stories viewers tap through rather than pure reach: an audience of 100,000 users clicking through 100 consecutive story frames generates massive revenue because the platform litters advertisements in between taps.

Turning to Kick, the hosts inquire about what the streaming platform pays him in hourly base compensation. Clavicular states that he typically earns around $1,000 per hour streaming on Kick. When pressed on the concurrent viewer requirements for that rate, he mentions hearing benchmarks like $10 per 100 viewers under the Kick Creator Incentive Program (KCIP), though he admits he does not fully understand the exact formula because his pay fluctuates unpredictably month to month even with identical concurrent viewership:

> “You know, it's kind of just like uh whether Kick sort of likes you that month, I think.”

---

[01:33:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=5586s) Inside the Gambling Deal: $15K Daily Allowance and $85K Peaks

The hosts shift to gambling sponsorships, remarking that lucrative streaming contracts with platforms like Stake and Roobet completely redefined online creator income compared to legacy YouTube ad revenue. When asked what his specific deal entails, Clavicular reveals that he starts every daily session with a $15,000 balance in his account. He is permitted to keep whatever remains at the end of the broadcast. Despite daily volatility where he sometimes loses the entire balance, he has finished net positive every month for the prior three months.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Daily Gambling Stream Cash Flow accDescr: Diagram illustrating the starting daily stake balance, session outcomes, and month-end positive net cash flow.

subgraph DailySession["Daily Stream Session"] A["Starting Balance: $15,000"] --> B{"Session Play / Multipliers"} B -->|"Downside"| C["Lose Full $15K"] B -->|"Upside"| D["Run Up to $85K Peak"] end

subgraph MonthlyResult["Portfolio Outcome"] C --> E["Net Positive Payout Across Past 3 Months"] D --> E E --> F["Top Income Stream Over All Others"] end ```

The hosts are stunned when Clavicular shares that his single biggest gambling session netted roughly $85,000 in a day, confirming that gambling serves as his single largest source of income. While the hosts note that high-earning streamers are often estimated to make $300,000 to $500,000 monthly, Clavicular hints his gambling earnings alone push him far beyond those estimates:

> “I mean for gambling I'm just from that I make a lot more than than that.”

- **Starting daily bankroll:** $15,000 deposited for daily streaming sessions. - **Top single-day gambling win:** ~$85,000. - **Primary income driver:** Gambling deals rank as his highest revenue stream, surpassing direct Kick creator payouts and social media ad revenue. - **Privacy stance:** Clavicular avoids sharing exact total figures publicly, arguing that while viewers can extrapolate from public data, “it's unwise to let people know exactly.”

---

[01:35:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=5707s) The Fairness of Paid Gambling and Massive Slot Multipliers

The conversation turns to public skepticism surrounding sponsored gambling broadcasts, with the host drawing a parallel between creator monetization models:

> “Just thinking that maybe like, you know, women for only fans is almost like the men for gambling.”

The host admits that when viewers see high-profile streamers like Trainwreckstv win massive payouts—such as a $50 million jackpot—it instinctively feels staged or fake. Clavicular pushes back, explaining that Stake processes roughly $1 billion in wagers per day and would never risk its gaming licenses, operations, or reputational integrity just to fake account balances or juice odds for promotional clips. When the host questions whether paid partners receive skewed odds—such as a 49% house edge instead of 51% to keep them winning—Clavicular insists the outcomes are pure variance driven by extreme slot mechanics. He explains that his runs come down to hitting volatile bonus features, noting that he might spin through $500 bets, jump to a $2,000 bonus buy, and hit massive max-win multipliers that reach up to 70,000x.

---

[01:36:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=5808s) High-Roll Variance, Mentors, and Financial Advice

When asked whether cycling through tens of thousands of dollars a day warps his sense of normal expenses like rent, cars, or a cup of coffee, Clavicular insists it does not. He compartmentalizes gambling capital as pure streaming currency separate from his real-world lifestyle. He points out that he does not indulge in exotic sports cars—he only keeps a Mercedes Sprinter van and an SUV—chiefly because he rarely drives.

Addressing how he avoids being exploited by bad actors—a common pitfall for young, fast-rising earners—Clavicular explains that unlike his earlier days when he operated without guidance, he now maintains a network of mentors:

> “Someone doing like a lot better than you, like isn't really going to be out to get you. Like, you know. I'm friends with people who are are worth, you know, nine, 10 figures. Like, they don't really care to like try to [screw] me over in my situation and give me bad advice.”

Asked for the most impactful financial lesson he has implemented, Clavicular highlights the principle that wealth is determined by retention rather than gross revenue:

> “Probably that it's not about what you make, it's about what you save.”

He reflects on past months where top-line revenues were higher but profit margins suffered from excessive overhead, such as bloated production expenses that failed to convert into returns or unnecessary studio hardware. Today, he optimizes for net monthly profit over vanity revenue figures.

---

[01:38:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=5926s) Spending Habits, Parental Influence, and a $400K Monthly Burn

The hosts probe into lifestyle inflation and whether earning above a certain threshold brings diminishing returns. Clavicular notes that everyday personal spending has flatlined because he avoids the typical high-roller nightlife circuit; the most he has ever dropped at a nightclub was approximately $8,000. When reflecting on his biggest spending waste, he points to booking absurdly overpriced luxury accommodations while traveling, recalling an exorbitant hotel bill from a trip to Israel.

Clavicular credits his financial self-control to growing up watching his father. Despite being very wealthy, his father maintained frugal habits, such as taking home hotel shampoo and vanity toiletries. Observing those habits instilled a baseline discipline about money management. However, when asked about his total monthly burn rate—taking into account his current luxury penthouse, another even nicer property he maintains, and his full-time staff salaries—Clavicular drops a staggering figure:

> “I would say maybe like 400 or something like that. It's $400,000 a month. When you count for staff probably around there.”

[01:41:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=6061s) The Reality of a $400,000 Monthly Overhead

The hosts press Clavicular on how he manages to burn through roughly $400,000 every single month, asking whether that tally includes gambling losses. Clavicular confirms that gambling is not factored into that figure at all. He runs through the real-world breakdown of his lifestyle and business expenses: he maintains two luxury penthouse apartments—one costing $20,000 per month and another running $35,000 per month—alongside payroll for a team of seven people, complete coverage of their daily meals, and personal security.

Beyond housing and staffing, travel eats up a massive portion of his cash flow. While he admits he tries to fly economy as much as possible—even flying economy on a recent trip to Paris—the auxiliary costs of luxury travel pile up fast. Spending summers in European hotspots like Saint-Tropez and Mykonos requires massive outlays for high-end Airbnbs, constant Uber rides, and inflated seasonal rates. On the topic of finances, he notes that this will be the first year he is hit with a massive tax bill because his earnings did not explode until around December 2025. Clavicular bluntly describes the prospect of writing that first massive check to the IRS: “It's not great.”

When asked about his secondary income streams, Clavicular clarifies that his membership community and one-on-one consulting do not represent significant revenue: - **Membership Revenue:** He keeps the membership running on the side, but it does not bring in substantial money relative to his primary cash drivers. - **One-on-One Consultations:** He restricts these to just a few times a week because he is heavily pressed for time. - **Consulting Fees:** Most consultations are performed entirely for free as favors to close friends, peers, and fellow influencers seeking aesthetic advice rather than as a structured paid business.

---

[01:43:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=6193s) Guest Quest: Clavicular Fires Back at Greg Doucette

The conversation pivots to "Guest Quest," where the hosts read submitted questions and critiques from prominent fitness and business creators. The first set of jabs comes from bodybuilder and fitness YouTuber Greg Doucette, who challenges Clavicular on his physique and surgeries. Greg points out that despite using performance-enhancing drugs, Clavicular appears to have lost all his muscle mass, looks entirely natural, and no longer streams gym sessions, asking if he plans to return to weightlifting to actually influence young people. Clavicular pushes back against the premise, explaining that he does not stream his workouts and only took time off while navigating an intense European travel schedule. He clarifies that he is merely on testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) rather than blasting high-dose bodybuilding cycles:

> “When Greg says you look natural, it's because realistically I am. Like, I'm on TRT, testosterone replacement therapy. That's not, you know, a steroid blast bodybuilder type cycle. And it doesn't do the work for you.”

Clavicular notes that even on gear, muscle growth is impossible without putting in the gym work, pointing out that a natural athlete with disciplined training and nutrition will easily outgain an inactive person taking compounds.

The hosts then play Greg's second question, where he aggressively mocks Clavicular's rhinoplasty, referencing his own girlfriend’s procedure in Turkey and asking why Clavicular needed it. Clavicular laughs off the insult and turns the logic right back on Greg:

> “Well, if I recall, doesn't Greg have a hair transplant? Right? So, does he really need that? I mean, what? He's a millionaire. He's got a girlfriend. Like, did you really need the hair transplant, bro? You know what I mean? So, that's what I'd say to him. Did I need the fucking nose job? Probably not, but it ascended me.”

Finally, addressing Greg’s third prompt—asking whether a 16-year-old influencer named Eric English, who promotes peptide companies on Instagram, is worse than him—Clavicular argues that Greg fundamentally misunderstands his platform. Clavicular emphasizes that whenever he discusses pharmacological protocols, he explicitly tells his audience to only act under a physician’s supervision. While he openly shares his own risky, shocking experiments, he constantly tells viewers, "Don't fucking do this." He draws an analogy to alcohol: he might drink at a nightclub on stream, but he still warns his young viewers that alcohol consumption is toxic, evil, and particularly damaging to adolescent development.

---

[01:46:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=6406s) Chris Camillo on Diminishing Returns, Bottlenecks, and Channel 5

The hosts present a lengthy critique from investor and recurring guest Chris Camillo. Camillo argues that while he agrees with much of Clavicular's aesthetic philosophy, Clavicular misses the mark on the concept of diminishing returns. According to Camillo, once an individual ranks in the top 10% to 15% in aesthetics, the highest return on investment comes from leveling up charisma, intelligence, status, wealth, and competence, rather than fighting to reach the top 1% of looks. Camillo suggests that extreme attractiveness can even turn into a liability in high-level corporate and startup environments where leaders must fight against superficial assumptions. He warns of selection bias: if your entire dataset is the dating market, looks seem all-important; if your dataset is elite founders, athletes, and politicians, the equation changes drastically.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Chris Camillo Diminishing Returns Framework accDescr: Visual flowchart demonstrating the transition from aesthetics to multi-dimensional bottlenecks at higher levels of achievement.

subgraph Phase1["Top 10-15% Tier (High ROI)"] A["Focus on LooksMaxxing & Presentation"] --> B["Attain Top 10-15% Threshold"] end

subgraph Phase2["Diminishing Returns Zone"] B --> C{"Next Strategic Bottleneck"} C -->|"Grinding to Top 1% Looks"| D["Low Incremental ROI & Potential Prejudices"] C -->|"Multi-Dimensional Scaling"| E["Status, Wealth, Charisma & Competence"] end ```

Clavicular counters that he and Camillo actually hold the same opinion, explaining that he openly discussed diminishing returns earlier in the interview and readily credited his recent success to his platform and internet notoriety rather than just microscopic improvements to his face. He points out that context is frequently stripped away by short-form clip channels:

> “It's just another situation where like if you actually listen to me in like a long-form setting, I usually clarify all my points extremely well. It's just like things will get clipped. That's the nature of short-form redistribution. So, I would say we probably don't disagree on much, me and that guy.”

To close out the discussion, the hosts ask Clavicular what went wrong during his widely watched interview with Andrew Callaghan on Channel 5. Clavicular explains that his frustration was not directed at Callaghan personally, but rather at the interview's framing. Instead of asking substantive questions about the looksmaxxing subculture, aesthetics, or the actual subject matter of his content, Callaghan spent the conversation probing for his opinions on unrelated political topics. When asked if the Iced Coffee Hour hosts could have improved anything about their own session, Clavicular expresses complete satisfaction with their long-form approach, noting that they gave him room to properly detail his ideas.

[01:50:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=6607s) Club Incidents, Arrests, and Frame Mogging

The conversation turns to viral incidents from Clavicular’s past, starting with the time he passed out at a nightclub. He explains that it was simply a matter of drinking heavily on an empty stomach after having abstained from alcohol for six months, which left him with very low tolerance. He pushes back on how the media framed the event: “Yeah, technically, but that makes it seem like it was drugs... technically it is an overdose, but it's alcohol. It's a little different, you know.” When asked about another widely circulated incident where he was slapped and pressed charges against the woman involved, he explains that taking legal action ended up backfiring on him professionally: the club banned him because filing the report revealed his real age to management. He confirms he pressed misdemeanor battery charges, and while he is unsure of the exact legal outcome, he notes with amusement how the clip reliably resurfaces on social media timelines every few months.

The hosts then bring up an infamous viral moment where viewers claimed an Arizona State University fraternity leader “frame mogged” him. Clavicular laughs off the ongoing obsession with the video, acknowledging that the buzz in February helped fuel his early viral momentum, but he declines to claim supremacy in appearance. Instead, he defines his brand: “You know, my whole thing is I've never really claimed to be like the best looking person. That's not my thing like, 'Oh, I'm the ultimate looksmaxxer.' It's like I'm just super knowledgeable in the field and I give advice.”

- **Club ban cause:** Pressing misdemeanor battery charges revealed his underage status to nightclub management, leading to him being barred. - **ASU viral clip:** Exploded around February, boosting his early follower growth; he keeps the frat leader's number blocked.

---

[01:52:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=6774s) Emotional Flatness, Composure, and Calculation

When asked when he was last embarrassed, Clavicular responds flatly with "Never," explaining that he is naturally emotionally neutral. Rather than feeling hurt by public rejections or unflattering clips, he feels pleased by them because they generate viral attention and viewership. He prefers this emotional state, asserting: “If I let all these little things affect me like, you know, what people say on the internet, then... I would be just in my head all the time when I'm streaming and just it's not good.”

The hosts praise his steady composure, noting that he avoids being reactionary. Clavicular views emotional detachment as an innate personality trait rather than an acquired skill, explaining that high inhibition or intense emotional swings lead to impulsive mistakes. He remarks: “Being pretty emotionally flatlined allows you to be a lot more... successful in a lot... more consistent I would say. So I'm extremely consistent.” When the hosts press him on a past incident involving a pedestrian hit by a car, he gives a strict "No comment," noting only that Florida legislation provides greater legal protections for drivers blocked by protests compared to California, and reiterates his personal philosophy: “Once again, I'm not an impulsive guy. Everything I do is calculated.”

---

[01:55:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=6950s) Building the Status and Sexual Market Value (SMV) Tier List

The hosts introduce a tier list segment evaluating prominent internet personalities, athletes, and celebrities based on status, looks, accomplishments, and sexual market value (SMV), ranked left-to-right within tiers from highest to lowest. Clavicular immediately puts Cristiano Ronaldo at the very front of S tier, followed closely by actor Henry Cavill. In A tier, he places Elon Musk at the front, followed by Lionel Messi, Tristan Tate, and Andrew Tate, explicitly putting Tristan ahead of Andrew within the tier. Timothée Chalamet is marked out for a high standing as well.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Clavicular Status and SMV Tier List accDescr: Visual hierarchy showing how public figures were ranked across S, A, B, C, and D tiers.

subgraph S_Tier["S Tier (Top SMV & Status)"] CR["Cristiano Ronaldo"] --> HC["Henry Cavill"] end

subgraph A_Tier["A Tier"] EM["Elon Musk"] --> LM["Lionel Messi"] LM --> TT["Tristan Tate"] TT --> AT["Andrew Tate"] end

subgraph B_Tier["B Tier"] DL["David Laid"] MB["MrBeast"] end

subgraph C_Tier["C Tier"] Hasan["Hasan Piker"] Speed["IShowSpeed"] Kai["Kai Cenat"] XQC["xQc"] NF["Nick Fuentes"] end

subgraph D_Tier["D Tier"] N3on["N3on"] JJW["Jesse James West"] Clav["Clavicular"] end

S_Tier --> A_Tier A_Tier --> B_Tier B_Tier --> C_Tier C_Tier --> D_Tier ```

Moving down into B tier, Clavicular places fitness influencer David Laid and MrBeast. For C tier, he slots in streaming giants and commentators: Hasan Piker, IShowSpeed, Kai Cenat, and xQc, noting how difficult it is to rank streamers against global titans like Messi and Musk. He places Nick Fuentes into C tier as well, specifically docking him due to how controversial his politics are. In D tier, Clavicular ranks streamer N3on, Jesse James West, and humbles himself by placing his own avatar into D tier alongside them. Toward the bottom of the list, the hosts point out thumbnails of themselves—Graham Stephan and financial creator Caleb Hammer—prompting laughter as the hosts check where they landed relative to one another.

[01:59:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=7193s) Ranking Streamers, Objective Self-Assessment, and Controlled Chaos

The conversation wraps up by breaking down Clavicular's personal ranking list of various influencers and creators by their sexual market value (SMV). When the hosts question where everyone landed, Clavicular clarifies that N3on was the only person he ranked lower than himself, placing himself second to last. Graham Stephan asks why Togi is placed significantly higher than both himself and co-host Jack Selby, wondering if it simply comes down to muscle. Clavicular explains that Togi excels across multiple dimensions: he is visibly jacked, brings in substantial money, possesses charisma, and has effectively mastered both "jester-maxxing" and "physique-maxxing." When Graham asks whether Togi outranks even Jesse James West, Clavicular stands firm, stating that he believes so.

Acknowledging his own modest ranking, Clavicular emphasizes his commitment to being completely realistic about where he stands in the pecking order. As Clavicular reflects, “I'm pretty objective with it. Like, you know, I realize like my faults and I have no problem acknowledging it. You know, I've never claimed to to like the best looking, highest SMV. I'm is a guy who could you know, talk for hours about every single drug interaction in my body and all areas of looks maxing.” Graham points out the impressive organization behind the scenes, noting that when Jack reached out to book the episode, Clavicular replied almost instantaneously with an exact day and time slot. Clavicular explains that he just wrapped up another podcast immediately before walking into the studio, having navigated an intense press run consisting of more than ten interviews over the prior week alone.

Graham observes an intriguing contrast in Clavicular's persona: beneath the wild, high-risk antics shown on stream, there lies a meticulous and deeply calculated mind. While viewers might witness seemingly irrational or dangerous behavior driven by entertainment, Clavicular appears to operate with a layer of controlled chaos where he avoids any real downside or overextending consequences. Clavicular readily agrees that the madness is heavily managed behind the curtain. Wrapping up the interview, Graham delivers a standard disclaimer advising the audience to consult qualified medical professionals rather than copying unregulated compounds, which Clavicular readily endorses by noting that he has always acknowledged his own lack of medical credentials. Jack and Graham conclude the episode by thanking the guest and reminding listeners that uncut, full-length episodes and early access are available through channel memberships.

- **Togi's SMV Advantages**: Clavicular attributes Togi's high placement to a rare combination of physical leanness/mass, strong income, comedic value ("jester-maxxing"), and undeniable charisma. - **Media Schedule**: Clavicular completed over 10 podcast and media appearances within the span of about a week, including another interview directly prior to recording this episode. - **The Calculated Performer**: Despite streaming wild stunts and taking lifestyle risks, Clavicular maintains rigid time management and avoids catastrophic real-world fallout through calculated planning.

## Notable quotes > [03:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=192s) There's really no excuse in 2026, in my opinion, to be overweight. — Clavicular

> [13:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=837s) I've always been a huge advocate for men's makeup cuz like, why should you have to suffer from horrible skin and acne when an easy solution exists that's been used by women for decades. — Clavicular

> [13:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=837s) If there's something that can make you better looking and more attractive to women, why wouldn't you leverage that? — Clavicular

> [50:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=3057s) Filler is actually going to cosmetically descend people in a lot of cases because it's meant to replicate soft tissue. — Clavicular

> [29:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840&t=1746s) I wouldn't want to live anywhere near Miami for less than $10,000 a month. — Clavicular

## Mentioned Clavicular, Jack Selby, Graham Stephan, Justin Allen, Caleb Hammer, Myron Gaines, Greg Doucette, Chris Camillo, Andrew Callaghan, Eric English, Togi, N3on, Jesse James West, Trainwreckstv, David Laid, MrBeast, Hasan Piker, IShowSpeed, Kai Cenat, xQc, Nick Fuentes, Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi, Henry Cavill, Matt Bomer, Elon Musk, Tom Brady, Gisele Bündchen, Adriana Lima, Alysa Liu, Tristan Tate, Andrew Tate, Timothée Chalamet, Sean O'Pry, The Iced Coffee Hour, Kick, Stake, Roobet, Snapchat, X, Cash App, Northwest Registered Agent, Whatnot, Monarch, Apple Pay, DoorDash, Channel 5, Fresh & Fit, After Hours, ChatGPT, Invisalign, Retatrutide, Tirzepatide, EMSAM, Selegiline, Nebivolol, Tadalafil, Melanotan II, Accutane, Dutasteride, Minoxidil, Anadrol, Trenbolone, Dihexa, Cerebrolysin, Botox

## Video description Northwest Registered Agent: Start Your LLC Today at https://www.northwestregisteredagent.com/ich Whatnot: $500 GIVEAWAY! Sign up to Whatnot using my link https://www.whatnot.com/invite/IcedCoffeeHour and follow me on Whatnot. Winner will be picked in a month. Get $15 OFF with the same link! #whatnotpartner Monarch: Use code ICEDCOFFEE at https://monarch.com to get your first year of Monarch Core half off at just $50! Cash App: Download Cash App Today: https://click.cash.app/ui6m/lpr7iap4 #CashAppPod

NO PURCHASE NECESSARY. Open to legal residents of the 50 U.S. states and D.C., 18+. To enter: (i) Sign up to Whatnot using the following link https://www.whatnot.com/invite/IcedCoffeeHour, and (ii) follow the following Whatnot account @IcedCoffeeHour. One entry per person. Entries must be received by August 29th at 11:59:59 p.m. PT. Winner selected at random on or about August 30th. Winner will be notified via the email associated with their Whatnot account and must respond within 5 days or prize may be forfeited and an alternate winner selected. Prize: $500 of Whatnot credit redeemable for purchases on the Whatnot platform (ARV: $500). Winner is responsible for all applicable taxes. This promotion is not sponsored, endorsed, or administered by YouTube. Sponsored by The Iced Coffee Hour. Void where prohibited.

Cash App is a financial services platform, not a bank. Banking services provided by Cash App’s bank partner(s). Prepaid debit cards issued by Sutton Bank, Member FDIC. Cash App Visa® Debit Flex Cards issued by Sutton Bank, Member FDIC, and The Bancorp Bank, N.A., pursuant to a license from Visa U.S.A. Inc. See terms and conditions for the Sutton prepaid card, Sutton debit flex card, and Bancorp debit flex card. Cash App Green features, Savings, Direct deposit, Round ups, Overdraft coverage and Discounts provided by Cash App, a Block, Inc. brand. Visit cash.app/legal/podcast for full disclosures.

*𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗡𝗘𝗖𝗧 𝗪𝗜𝗧𝗛 𝗨𝗦*

𝗜𝗚: https://www.instagram.com/icedcoffeehour 𝗝𝗔𝗖𝗞: https://www.instagram.com/jlsselby 𝗚𝗥𝗔𝗛𝗔𝗠: https://www.instagram.com/gpstephan

𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗹: https://www.youtube.com/c/TheIcedCoffeeHourClips 𝗫.𝗰𝗼𝗺: https://x.com/TheICHpodcast 𝗧𝗶𝗸𝗧𝗼𝗸: https://www.tiktok.com/@theicedcoffeehour 𝗦𝗽𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗳𝘆: https://open.spotify.com/show/5c2uoXBQkOjIiCOf60jJj7 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗲: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-iced-coffee-hour/id1515070058

Timestamps:

00:00:00 - Intro 00:00:53 - A Billion Views A Month For $0 00:03:12 - Money, Height, Or Hair: Which Guy Would You Rather Be? 00:06:23 - Building The Perfect Man (And Woman) From Scratch 00:09:56 - The $10,000 Starter Protocol And What He Takes Daily 00:13:00 - Sponsor: Northwest Registered Agent 00:13:57 - Should Men Wear Makeup? 00:17:03 - Which Genetic Disadvantages Are Real And Which Are Cope 00:20:26 - The Worst Places To Store Fat And When To Start 00:24:13 - Surgery vs Lifestyle, And Whether Money Can Replace Looks 00:30:12 - Sponsor: Whatnot & Monarch 00:33:01 - Miami Costs, Diminishing Returns, And Getting Lean 00:37:42 - The $3,500 Korean Skincare Session 00:41:11 - How Much Research Before Peptides, And The Dangerous DIY Stuff 00:44:09 - Trying Too Hard, Genetic Outliers, And The 128 IQ Test 00:49:00 - IQ Maxing, Overrated Surgeries, And His Nose Job 00:53:14 - Sponsor: Cash App 00:54:54 - What Men Actually Look For In Women 00:58:13 - The Golden Ratio And How Social Media Distorts Attraction 01:02:21 - Why Guys Rate Women 10/10 Out Of Desperation 01:05:21 - How He Met His Girlfriend (And Her Friend) 01:08:22 - Cheating, Tattoo Apologies, And The Guy Who Begged Him 01:12:35 - Objectivity vs Misogyny, And Open Relationships 01:16:09 - 10,000 Cold Approaches And What Actually Works 01:21:02 - Would He Date A Woman Who Out-Earns Him? 01:25:33 - His Girlfriend's $1,500 A Week Budget 01:29:41 - Worst Business Decision And Every Income Source 01:33:06 - Inside The Gambling Deal: $15K A Day 01:37:23 - Best Financial Advice And His $400,000 Monthly Overhead 01:43:09 - Guest Questions: Greg Doucette And Chris Camillo 01:49:30 - Channel 5, Passing Out At The Club, And Pressing Charges 01:52:54 - Why He Never Feels Embarrassed 01:55:46 - The Status Tier List

For sponsorships or business inquiries reach out to: icedcoffeehourpartnerships@gmail.com

Apply for The Index Membership: https://entertheindex.com/

For Podcast Inquiries, please DM @icedcoffeehour on Instagram!

*Some of the links and other products that appear on this video are from companies which Graham Stephan & Jack Selby will earn an affiliate commission or referral bonus. Graham Stephan & Jack Selby are part of an affiliate network and receives compensation for sending traffic to partner sites. The content in this video is accurate as of the posting date. Some of the offers mentioned may no longer be available.

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3urx7pV840)

中文简报

Clavicular靠容貌提升与Stake月入50万美元 Clavicular通过补贴Kick切片推广活动每月产生超10亿次曝光,以此支撑其每月40万美元、围绕容貌提升方案与高额赌博的生活方式。 Clavicular剖析了自己在Kick及社交媒体上的迅速崛起,解释了激进的病毒式切片传播和赌博合作如何在约40万美元的月支出下带来超50万美元的月收入。他概述了自己涵盖retatrutide、睾酮、鼻翼成形术及护肤在内的广泛药物与医美组合,同时认为优化面部协调度并将体脂率降至10–12%所带来的约会回报,远高于边际财富的增加。在整场谈话中,他剖析了性市场价值的数理逻辑、搭讪互动机制、恋爱预算,以及理性提升与极端线上DIY文化之间的界限。他还回应了病毒式争议、网络争端以及自己在顶级网络红人中的自我定位,坚称自己看似鲁莽的直播人设实则是经过系统化精心设计的。 Clavicular每月进账超过50万美元,来源包括Kick的时薪直播合同(1000美元/小时)、Snapchat动态(10万美元/月),以及Stake提供的每日1.5万美元投注额度赌场直播赞助。 (93:06) 他的个人每月开销约为40万美元,涵盖两套迈阿密顶层公寓、奢华旅行,以及一支由7名住家员工和12名远程虚拟助手组成的团队。 (103:46) 他目前的药物方案包括每周10毫克retatrutide、200毫克睾酮,每日7.5毫克异维A酸(Accutane)、150微克Melanotan II,以及每日9毫克的EMSAM贴片,每月药物成本约为2500美元。 (9:39) 在容貌美学理论方面,Clavicular认为70%的面部吸引力源自将体脂刷至10–12%的“刷脂增肌极限化”(lean-maxxing),并主张优先修正结构性缺陷('failos'),而非一味追求人工加分项('halos')。 (33:01)

Reading summary

Internet creator Clavicular argues that physical appearance yields a far higher and more attainable return on investment than extreme wealth accumulation, outlining an aesthetic framework driven by lean mass, facial harmony, and pharmacological protocols. He pairs this philosophy with an unconventional online operation where platform-subsidized distribution and casino sponsorships fund a reported $400,000 monthly burn rate. The Hierarchy of Aesthetic Optimization (33:01) According to Clavicular, approximately 70% of a man's visual potential is determined simply by 'lean maxing'—lowering body fat to the 10% to 12% range to expose facial bone structure. Coloring and facial contrast, such as skin tan level, hair shade, and sclera brightness, account for an estimated 20% of visual impact, with general skin health and muscularity making up the remaining margin. He contends that shifting from a 6 to an 8 in physical appearance delivers far greater real-world dividends in dating and social settings than attempting to scale income from $100,000 to $1,000,000. His core philosophy emphasizes eliminating distinct physical defects ('failos') rather than chasing artificial perfections ('halos'). Interventions such as corrective jaw surgery are appropriate for functional airway obstruction or severe recession, whereas dermal fillers in the cheekbones or jawline merely migrate over soft tissue within weeks, resulting in an unnatural appearance. Clavicular also advocates for normalizing male cosmetics, noting that spot-concealers and tinted SPFs resolve skin issues far more practically than enduring chronic acne. Pharmacological Stacks and Biological Limits (9:39) For individuals initiating aesthetic protocols, Clavicular outlines chemical regimens spanning metabolic, hormonal, and skin health compounds. His personal protocol includes 10 mg of retatrutide, testosterone replacement therapy (TRT), Accutane, minoxidil, and Melanotan II, though he cautions that Melanotan can aggravate hyperpigmentation like melasma. For those on an entry-level $10,000 budget, he suggests prioritizing GLP-1 peptides, a gym membership, foundational cosmetics, and tanning compounds, citing Phase 2 clinical trials showing high-dose retatrutide to be metabolically advantageous. While Clavicular advises starting lifestyle optimization as early as high school—warning that early adolescent alcohol consumption impairs cellular repair via the mTOR signaling pathway—he acknowledges hard biological limitations. In-utero conditions, maternal alcohol exposure, and underlying craniofacial proportions like a small skull remain structurally irreversible once growth plates fuse. Similarly, he opted against surgical correction via the Nuss procedure for his own pectus excavatum due to excessive financial costs and a debilitating six-month recovery period. Content Subsidies and Operational Economics (0:53) Clavicular's digital enterprise relies heavily on third-party distribution funding. Despite generating over one billion monthly impressions across short-form platforms, his direct syndication spend is zero dollars because the streaming service Kick funds his clipping network—investing up to $700,000 in a single month to redirect viral traffic to his channel and its associated Stake gambling funnel. On Kick, he receives roughly $1,000 per hour based on concurrent viewership, while his Snapchat operations yield several thousand dollars per day by maximizing story taps and ad viewability. Direct casino deals represent his primary revenue generator. Clavicular streams with a daily $15,000 starting Stake allocation, keeping whatever balance remains, and reported a single peak day netting $85,000. Countering skepticism over rigged creator odds, he contends that Stake processes $1 billion in daily volume and relies on authentic slot mechanics and high multipliers rather than juicing partnership accounts. However, this high top-line income is balanced by an estimated $400,000 monthly burn rate, encompassing two luxury Miami penthouses ($20,000 and $35,000 per month), a seven-person staff, personal security, and international travel expenses. Dating Strategy and Interpersonal Leverage (62:21) Applying his aesthetic frameworks to relationships, Clavicular argues that male loneliness has created extreme rating inflation, with men overvaluing female appearances out of desperation. For male datability, he advocates 'all-stat maxing' across physical, social, and financial metrics rather than relying on a single strength. In his personal life, he claims to have completed roughly 10,000 public cold approaches, bypassing small talk to directly gauge interest and reading indications of disinterest (IODs) to avoid unreciprocated effort. Within his domestic setup, Clavicular implements firm controls, including placing his non-working girlfriend on a $1,500 weekly discretionary allowance and establishing household batch-ordering rules for food delivery. While admitting to non-monogamous episodes during late-night outings, he argues that men compartmentalize casual physical encounters from romantic love. Despite asserting that women's modesty and conduct reflect on a partner's reputation, he expresses a preference for dating non-career women earning modest incomes, asserting that extreme professional dedication conflicts with domestic stability. Diminishing Returns and Social Market Assessment (106:46) Critics presented on the program challenged Clavicular's narrow focus on looks. Investor Chris Camillo argued that once an individual reaches the top 10% to 15% in physical appearance, additional time is far better allocated toward charisma, competence, and intelligence. Camillo warned that pushing into the top 1% of looks yields diminishing returns and can even generate superficial prejudices in high-level entrepreneurial or corporate environments. In response, Clavicular maintained that his aesthetic pursuits are grounded in empirical realities regarding how society rewards appearance over qualifications. Nonetheless, when compiling a tier list evaluating sexual market value (SMV) among public figures, Clavicular exhibited notable self-restraint. He placed elite athletes and high-status figures like Cristiano Ronaldo and Henry Cavill in S tier, while objectively ranking himself in D tier—second to last, above only streamer N3on—conceding that his value lies in specialized looksmaxxing knowledge and pharmacological transparency rather than claiming peak aesthetic standing. While Clavicular outlines an analytical, compound-driven approach to physical optimization and maintains a lucrative streaming apparatus, the source highlights unresolved tensions regarding the sustainability of his $400,000 monthly overhead and the diminishing utility of aesthetic investments beyond baseline attractiveness.

精炼阅读摘要

网络红人 Clavicular 在《The Iced Coffee Hour》节目中阐述了他的“颜值最大化”(Looksmaxxing)哲学、极端药物方案与变现机制。他主张外貌优化比追求极端财富具有更高的投入产出比,并通过直播平台补贴与博彩赞助支撑其每月高达 40 万美元的奢华开支。 流量漏斗与博彩驱动的商业模式 (0:53) Clavicular 透露,其短视频内容每月可获取超过 10 亿次播放量,而其个人的切片分发支出为零,全部由直播平台 Kick 补贴。平台最高曾单月为他的切片支出近 70 万美元,目的在于利用带有水印的切片作为流量漏斗前端,将观众引导至其 Kick 频道,进而导流至 Stake 博彩平台。 在个人收入构成方面,Kick 为其提供约每小时 1,000 美元的直播底薪,Snapchat 依靠高完播率与连续翻页广告每天可带来数千美元(月收入约 10 万美元)。博彩赞助则是其最大单项现金流来源:他每日享有 15,000 美元的初始博彩额度,且可保留结余资金。尽管波动剧烈,他曾创下单日净赚约 85,000 美元的峰值,且连续三个月保持净盈利。面对外界对博彩流水的作假质疑,他坚称 Stake 每日流水达 10 亿美元,不会冒牌照风险造假,其收益纯粹来自于高波动性老虎机机制与大额翻倍乘数。 极高月度消耗与高额生活成本 尽管自幼受富裕但节俭的父亲影响而避免过度出入夜店,Clavicular 透露其当前每月总支出高达约 40 万美元(不包含博彩亏损)。这笔支出主要由迈阿密两套豪华顶层公寓租金(分别每月 20,000 美元与 35,000 美元)、七人全职团队的薪资及餐费全包、私人安保以及高昂的欧洲度假差旅费用构成。 在个人关系中,他为没有工作的女友设立了每周 1,500 美元(每月 6,000 美元)的可自由支配零花钱预算,并在其超额消费时进行严格干预。此外,由于其收入在 2025 年底出现爆发式增长,他将首次面临向国税局(IRS)缴纳极其庞大的税款账单。 颜值最大化的核心层级与手术逻辑 (33:01) Clavicular 认为普通男性的外貌优化存在明确的权重层级:约 70% 的美学收益源自通过降低体脂至 10%–12% 来显现面部骨骼线条的“精简最大化”(Lean Maxing);20% 来自肤色、深发色及巩膜反差等“色彩对比度”;剩余 10% 则分布在肌肉维度与皮肤平整度。他推崇防晒、遮瑕膏等男性化妆品以及高 PA 评级防晒霜,以极低成本迅速掩盖瑕疵。 在医美与手术层面,他指出社区的核心原则是“消除严重缺陷(Failos)而非刻意制造光环(Halos)”,例如矫正因口呼吸导致的下颌后缩及睡眠呼吸暂停,而非盲目垫高眼眶模仿超模。他强烈反对注射面部填充剂,认为填充剂模拟的是软组织而非坚硬骨骼,注射于下颌或颧骨两周后必然发生移位导致外貌恶化。针对不可逆缺陷,他提到自己患有轻度漏斗胸,但鉴于 Nuss 手术需要植入金属杆并需停训半年且开销巨大,他选择放弃手术。 药物协议与激进干预的风险界限 (9:39) 在生理生化干预上,Clavicular 透露其自身使用包括 10 mg 瑞他曲肽(Retatrutide,每 5 天一次)、每周 200 mg 睾酮替代疗法(TRT)、异维A酸(Accutane)、度他雄胺、Melanotan II、T2 及米诺地尔等复合药物。针对初学者 10,000 美元的入门预算,他建议配置 GLP-1 受体激动剂、健身房会员、基础护肤遮瑕及美黑化合物。他主张胰高血糖素受体激动对非酒精性脂肪肝等代谢指标有明确助益,并淡化外源睾酮对生育能力的长期损害风险。 尽管推崇药物生化调节,他强烈反对无资质的极端 DIY 手术。他提到曾见闻部分网络社群成员自行用螺丝将上颌骨扩张器(MSE)拧入上腭、在家用刀切除男性女乳症腺体、甚至自行切开内眦进行开眼角手术,强调缺乏执业监管与生理认知的业余手术极其危险且愚蠢。 约会市场动态与多维属性竞争 (26:23) Clavicular 主张在约会软件盛行的当下,男性外貌评分从 6 分提升至 8 分所带来的择偶收益,远高于年收入从 10 万美元跃升至 100 万美元的难度与回报。针对极端收入预期,他认为社交媒体放大了拜金言论,但单纯凭借财富吸引女性往往只能维持交易性质的“虚假喜爱”,无法唤起真实的生理吸引力。此外,他指出 18 至 21 岁年轻男性的孤独危机导致择偶时极易出于绝望而虚高打分。 在嘉宾 Chris Camillo 提出“外貌进入前 10%–15% 后便应转战魅力、智商与地位以防边际效应递减”的质疑后,Clavicular 依然强调尽可能把所有属性加满(All-stat maxing)。在其建立的性市场价值(SMV)排行榜中,他将 C 罗与亨利·卡维尔排在最高梯队,同时保持客观自我审视,坦言自己在多位网红中处于靠后排位,并认为情绪平稳与理性算计是其在网络舆论与商业运作中保持稳定的核心特质。 本期节目展现了现代直播经济与“颜值最大化”亚文化交叉催生的极端范例。Clavicular 将医学文献、生化激进干预与商业流量变现严密结合,但其大量采用非处方肽类、激素药物及高风险高流水的博彩赞助模式,其长期的身体健康风险与财务可持续性依然充满不确定性。

Source quotes

[3:12] Clavicular: There's really no excuse in 2026, in my opinion, to be overweight. [13:57] Clavicular: I've always been a huge advocate for men's makeup cuz like, why should you have to suffer from horrible skin and acne when an easy solution exists that's been used by women for decades. [13:57] Clavicular: If there's something that can make you better looking and more attractive to women, why wouldn't you leverage that? [50:57] Clavicular: Filler is actually going to cosmetically descend people in a lot of cases because it's meant to replicate soft tissue. [29:06] Clavicular: I wouldn't want to live anywhere near Miami for less than $10,000 a month.

Original transcript

[0:00] For the average person starting their [0:01] journey of ascension, where does every [0:03] dollar go? [0:04] >> The average person's pretty rich. [0:08] >> Klavikular had an apparent overdose here [0:10] in South Florida, and those disturbing [0:12] moments unfolding [music] [0:13] live on camera before the stream [0:15] suddenly cuts off. [0:17] >> What are you taking right now? [0:18] >> 10 mg of redituxitide testosterone. [0:20] >> acutane anadrol trenbolone [0:22] >> T2 [0:23] anoxidal trenbolone [music] [0:24] >> With the concurrent viewers with Kick, [0:26] what is Kick paid? [0:27] >> Around like 1,000 an hour. And [music] [0:29] you have Snapchat, which is a new one [0:31] that's really big. [0:31] >> A few grand a day. [0:32] >> What does your gambling deal look like? [0:34] >> I gamble 15k every day. [0:38] >> How much do you [music] spend every [0:39] month? You have this penthouse [0:40] apartment. You have another one [0:42] apparently that's way nicer, [music] you [0:43] said. [0:44] >> 400. [0:45] >> $400,000 a month? [0:47] >> Yeah. [0:48] >> Oh my gosh. [0:50] Klavikular, thank you so much for coming [0:52] on The Iced Coffee Hour. [0:53] >> Thanks for having me. [0:54] >> You get 1 billion views per month. How [0:58] much do you pay for that? [1:00] >> Zero. [1:00] >> You pay zero dollars for a billion [1:02] views? [1:02] >> Yeah, I have no clipping spend. [1:04] >> How do you spend zero and get a billion [1:05] views? [1:06] >> Kick pays for the clipping because it's [1:08] got a huge kick.com/klavikular [1:11] logo. So, they're driving traffic to [1:13] their site, right? When you do a [1:14] clipping campaign, [1:16] you're sort of picking like where you [1:18] want these views to go, [1:20] whether it be, you know, your like [1:23] product or [1:25] maybe getting people to follow your [1:27] account, whatever the case may be. And [1:29] Kick is driving traffic to their website [1:31] because on their website, there's it's [1:34] Stake. A lot of people gamble on Stake. [1:36] So, that's kind of what what happens. [1:37] >> Do they run this for anyone else? [1:39] >> Everyone on Kick. [1:40] >> Everyone on Kick? [1:41] >> Yeah. [1:42] >> And so, if you create a Kick account and [1:43] you get views, they just assume that [1:45] you're okay with running [1:47] clipping. [1:48] >> Mhm. Yeah, you you get [1:50] a clipping budget and it's [1:52] >> What's your clipping budget? [1:54] >> It's unlimited. It's just they'll [1:55] fluctuate the CPM [1:58] based on like the spenj. uh [2:00] So like [2:02] one month it was close to 700,000. [2:05] >> Woah. [2:07] >> Yeah. [2:07] >> Holy 700 grand? [2:09] >> Yeah, I did 2.2 billion views and [2:14] like a month or two ago. [2:15] >> That is insane. Do you think people care [2:17] because it's looksmaxing or do you think [2:19] they care because they want to see what [2:20] you're doing? [2:21] >> Both. [2:23] It's like a new phenomenon and like [2:26] sort of created an entire new part of [2:28] the internet. So it's just like it's [2:31] different content. People want to see [2:32] it. [2:33] >> Is looksmaxing more popular today or [2:35] about a year ago? [2:36] >> Today, for sure. [2:38] I would say that [2:41] looksmaxing [2:42] you know, I'm obviously like the face of [2:45] it. So maybe [2:47] like the popularity that you saw for [2:50] looksmaxing [2:51] and you saw these videos about [2:53] looksmaxing, maybe you're seeing videos [2:54] about me instead. [2:56] It could be the case of that, but it's [2:58] as big as ever. Everyone knows what [3:00] looksmaxing is. Every kid is using these [3:02] terms, whether it be you know, the NFL [3:05] or Netflix. [3:06] People are saying it at the Oscar [3:08] Awards. So it's the lingo that's also [3:11] huge. [3:12] >> Imagine three guys. One of them is 5'4 [3:16] with $50 million [3:17] and he has average everything aside from [3:20] money. One of them is 5'10 average on [3:24] everything but very funny. [3:26] One of them is 6'3, broke, obese, and [3:29] balding. [3:30] Who would you rather be? [3:31] >> I would say the middle option in the [3:33] immediate context, but the person who's [3:36] 5'4 arguably has the best chance to [3:39] ascend, right? With that kind of [3:42] you know, with that kind of savings you [3:43] could do a lot of different things, [3:45] get a lot of different surgeries and max [3:47] out [3:48] you know, with with limb lengthening [3:50] because that is like very low percentile [3:53] height. So, um you're going to be at a [3:54] huge disadvantage in dating, right? A [3:56] lot of like women will filter out even [3:59] anything below 6 ft on dating apps, so [4:01] you're not even going to appear as [4:03] they're swiping. And that's where the [4:04] majority of people are meeting their [4:05] partners nowadays. There's a lot of new [4:07] research on this. People don't meet in [4:09] person as your parents would. Uh so, [4:12] totally different dating market. Um you [4:14] know, but with that amount of money, [4:17] you're going to be able to really like [4:21] uh do different things like flex your [4:23] status and and get girls, but it won't [4:25] be authentic love. That's the problem, [4:27] right? [4:28] >> Fake love. [4:29] >> Right. I mean, you might be able to [4:30] have, you know, a 90-ft boat or whatever [4:33] that plenty of women want to come on [4:34] just for the experience, but are they [4:36] really going to love you? That's the [4:37] question. [4:38] Whereas, um you know, the example of of [4:41] the guy who's 5'10 um with a good [4:43] personality, it's a lot more likely. [4:46] >> So, you think someone who's under a [4:47] certain height is incapable being loved? [4:50] Or how does that work? Or is it only the [4:53] money and the status? [4:55] >> I think it's less likely, certainly. [4:57] >> But it's possible. [4:58] >> It's yeah, anything's possible, right? [5:00] But we're Are we talking about You [5:03] always have to clarify like getting [5:04] women and having women around because [5:07] that's not necessarily the most [5:08] difficult thing in the world, but [5:10] keeping them and actually having them be [5:12] physically attracted to you, [5:14] very different ball game. [5:15] >> So, what's your advice to the other two? [5:17] >> The person who's 6'3 uh and fat and [5:20] balding, um [5:21] that that's going to be something that's [5:23] pretty easy [5:25] uh to ascend in, right? Getting lean [5:27] with today's technology, the GLP-1s, [5:29] uh it's never been easier. So, there's [5:31] really no excuse in 2026, in my opinion, [5:34] to be overweight. Like, that just seems [5:35] ridiculous. Uh and as for the hair, you [5:38] have a lot of different stuff. You have [5:39] hair transplants, you have hair systems, [5:42] so [5:43] um [5:43] you know, you do that in conjunction [5:45] with a good hair loss protocol, um then, [5:48] you know, you're you're going to be able [5:49] to ascend. [5:50] The only issue is, you know, being [5:52] broke. [5:54] It's a very competitive dating market. [5:55] So, once you ascend and you do these [5:57] things and you're 6'3, you you have [5:59] hair, you're in good shape, there's [6:01] someone who's also going to have those [6:02] same stat lines, [6:04] but they're also going to have millions [6:05] of dollars, right? Because of just the [6:07] nature of hypergamy and how Instagram's [6:10] glo- globalized anything, you're not [6:12] just competing with that 20-mi radius of [6:15] the guys in your town, you're competing [6:16] with sometimes famous influencers, [6:19] athletes, just people all around the [6:20] world. [6:21] >> So, if you were building the perfect [6:23] male from scratch, where would you [6:26] start? [6:27] >> There the common saying is it's all [6:29] about the face, right? That's going to [6:31] be the thing [6:32] in which, you know, the margin for error [6:35] is extremely small, right? If your [6:37] mid-face ratio is even a centimeter [6:40] long, [6:41] that's going to affect you a lot more [6:43] than, you know, even 10 centimeters of [6:45] height will. But, for example, if your [6:48] mid-face is is 1:1, [6:50] it would be perfect, you know, that's [6:52] going to be the distance between your [6:53] pupils relative to the distance between [6:55] your pupil and and your lip. So, if you [6:58] extend that by a centimeter or decrease [7:01] it by a centimeter, [7:02] that's going to have a huge effect on [7:04] your facial ratios [7:06] and your overall harmony percentage [7:08] versus, you know, if you change a margin [7:11] of 1 centimeter even to 10 centimeters [7:13] and height, it's not going to do as [7:15] much. [7:16] >> So, you'd start there though, and then [7:17] what's next after that? [7:19] >> Just physical, I would say, [7:21] would be your height, right? Women are [7:24] going to feel, [7:26] you know, that sense of being protected [7:29] and they're going to feel a lot safer. [7:31] Their anxiety levels will drop quite [7:33] significantly and there's a lot of [7:35] research, even, you know, if you extend [7:37] it to your career, right? About your [7:39] average income going up for every inch, [7:42] you know, above 6 ft you are, it's like [7:43] an additional uh $5,000 on average per [7:46] year. So, that's probably where I would [7:48] go next. Uh and then, you know, after [7:51] that would be having a proportional [7:53] frame because a lot of taller guys, we [7:56] call them lanklets on the forum cuz [7:58] they'll have that super narrow by [7:59] deltoid width and it's just not [8:01] proportional to your height, so it kind [8:03] of looks goofy. [8:04] Um so, the frame and how wide your [8:07] biacromial width is, which is shoulder [8:09] joint to shoulder joint, is very [8:11] important. [8:11] >> What if you were to build the optimal [8:13] female from scratch? [8:14] >> I would say the same, um pretty much. Um [8:18] so, the face is always going to be the [8:19] most important to me. [8:21] Uh it's sort of like been a new trend [8:23] that's been influenced, I think, by [8:24] pornography more or less. [8:27] Um with just like this emphasis on the [8:29] body more so than a girl having like a [8:32] super [8:33] um model-looking hot face. It's like a [8:36] lot of guys are just like gooning and [8:38] [ __ ] all day, so they're just looking [8:40] with the girl with the biggest ass and [8:41] the biggest tits. [8:43] Um but, you know, that's obviously not [8:45] going to be the best choice [8:47] uh in terms of your uh genetics and and [8:50] what you're passing along to your kids. [8:52] There's also a different thing that I [8:53] look for in women, which is an important [8:56] ratio called the waist-to-hip ratio. Uh [8:58] and that's a huge indicator of [9:00] fertility. [9:01] >> Okay, that's interesting. So, you look [9:03] for fertility in women, and this is not [9:04] supposed to be a contending thing. It [9:06] just sparked an idea in my head, but I [9:08] also know that you've been, you know, [9:10] taking PEDs for several years. [9:12] >> Correct. Yeah. [9:13] >> And I think I've heard somewhere that [9:15] you claim to be incapable [9:17] >> Yeah. [9:17] >> of being fertile, at least in the [9:19] current stage. How how does How does [9:22] Where does your mind go when you are [9:24] juxtapose those two things? [9:25] >> Well, I mean, I'm infertile as of now, [9:28] but if with the right fertility [9:29] protocol, HCG and HMG, [9:32] um yeah, I'll be able to regain my [9:34] fertility quite quickly. [9:35] Um and, you know, I've been thinking [9:37] about doing the protocol [9:39] uh and just freezing sperm [9:42] while I'm still young cuz like the more [9:44] years go on, your chances sort of [9:46] diminish, but it's extremely extremely [9:48] rare [9:49] and the chances are so low that you'll [9:51] go completely infertile from taking [9:52] testosterone that it's really not even [9:55] that important. [9:56] >> If you had $10,000 [9:59] for the average person to spend starting [10:01] their journey of ascension, where does [10:03] every dollar go? [10:04] >> I would say it goes towards GLP-1 [10:08] peptides, [10:09] a gym membership, different things like [10:13] makeup is a really good one. I would say [10:17] different tanning supplements, Melanotan [10:20] 2, you know, you have your carotenoids, [10:23] stuff like that. That's it's pretty good [10:24] place to start. [10:25] >> How are we so sure that this is not harm [10:28] potentially harmful? [10:29] >> Well, there's a lot of research and it's [10:31] it's a completely mainstream opinion [10:34] that GLP-1s and something like [10:36] retatrutide are are very actually [10:39] healthy for you, right? So, your lipid [10:42] profile is going to go down, right? So, [10:44] >> But is it the is it the peptide itself [10:47] or is it once you lose weight, you're [10:49] just naturally healthy? [10:51] >> bit of both. [10:53] You know, so there the glucagon receptor [10:56] that's being agonized has lots of [10:58] different health benefits. Retatrutide [11:00] is also good for non-fatty acid liver. [11:05] You know, so [11:06] there's tons of different stuff that [11:07] comes along with this and the phase two [11:10] clinical trials have really shown that [11:12] even at high doses of retatrutide as [11:14] high as 12 mg has proven to be safe. [11:17] >> What are you taking right now? [11:18] >> Right now, I'm taking 10 mg of [11:21] retatrutide every 5 days. [11:23] I'm taking 200 mg of testosterone, [11:27] 7.5 mg of Accutane, Uh, 150 micrograms a [11:32] day of melanotan II. Uh, I'm taking um, [11:36] 5 mg of tadalafil Cialis a day. Uh, I [11:40] take 5 mg of nebivolol, which is a [11:42] beta-blocker, per day. I take 2.5 mg of [11:47] minoxidil. I take 0.5 mg of dutasteride. [11:51] And I take um, 9 mg of EMSAM, [11:55] selegiline. [11:56] >> How much does that cost? [11:58] >> I would say the most expensive would be [12:01] the EMSAM, the selegiline, [12:04] um, since no insurance really covers it [12:06] and I don't have health insurance [12:08] regardless. I think it's about 2, 2,200 [12:10] a month for just that, but the rest of [12:12] it uh, I would say my prescriptions are [12:15] probably like maybe 300 a month. [12:18] >> So, about 2,500 a month, give or take, [12:21] on the supplements. [12:22] >> about that. [12:23] >> And what would happen if tomorrow you [12:24] decided to quit everything? [12:26] >> Well, I would be hypogonadal, [12:28] um, so my testosterone would take uh, [12:31] two or three weeks to to start, you [12:33] know, my uh, endocrine cycle again. Uh, [12:36] so my energy levels would be pretty bad. [12:38] I would lose some muscle mass. Um, and [12:41] you know, when you stop taking the [12:43] minoxidil, [12:44] um, all the different uh, hair density [12:47] will start to go away. Some of my [12:48] eyelashes will fall out. Um, so those [12:51] would be the the biggest, um, changes, [12:54] but everything else [12:56] wouldn't really be too noticeable. [12:58] >> And what about makeup? Are you wearing [13:00] any makeup right now? [13:01] >> A lot of people run their side hustles [13:03] off their personal Venmo and Instagram [13:05] for way longer than they should, because [13:07] actually forming a business seems like a [13:09] huge leap. But it's actually very [13:11] straightforward with today's sponsor, [13:12] Northwest Registered Agent. For $39 plus [13:15] state fees, Northwest forms your LLC and [13:18] handles the state filings for you. You [13:20] get your operating agreement, membership [13:22] certificates, and banking resolutions, [13:24] all the actual paperwork that makes it [13:26] official. Plus, you get a free-domain [13:27] website, email, phone line, brand [13:29] protection, and mail forwarding, so your [13:31] business looks like a real company, not [13:33] just a side project. It also means you [13:35] can actually open up a real business [13:37] banking account instead of mixing your [13:38] business money with your personal money, [13:40] which, let's be honest, you've probably [13:42] been meaning to do. If you've been [13:43] running your side hustle off your [13:45] personal accounts for too long, it's [13:46] time to make it official. Just go to [13:48] northwestregisteredagent.com [13:50] to get started. That is [13:51] northwestregisteredagent.com [13:53] or click the link down below in the [13:55] description to get your LLC filed today. [13:57] Thank you, Northwest Registered Agent, [13:58] for sponsoring this episode. [14:01] And what about makeup? Are you wearing [14:02] any makeup right now? [14:04] >> Yeah, a little bit. [14:05] >> So, where? [14:05] >> Um just I I use like a tinted SPF. So, [14:09] >> Does that qualify as makeup? [14:11] >> know if a tinted SPF Yeah, I think so. [14:14] >> It's a sunscreen. If it doesn't qualify [14:16] as that, yeah. [14:17] >> I don't know if that Well, I mean, just [14:20] for argument's sake, it's like um say [14:22] you were to opt for like a little bit of [14:23] concealer as well, like, you know, to [14:25] cover up um some blemishes. I I don't [14:29] really think that's um something that [14:31] should be criticized cuz you're never [14:32] going to get caught for it unless you're [14:33] saying it on a [ __ ] podcast, you [14:35] know? So, I've always been a huge [14:37] advocate for uh men's makeup cuz like, [14:40] why should you have to suffer from [14:42] horrible skin and and acne when uh an [14:45] easy solution exists that's been used by [14:47] women for decades. [14:49] >> I see this a little bit more [14:50] traditionally. Like, if you're wearing [14:52] makeup as a man, let's just say I'm [14:54] putting myself in the shoes of a woman. [14:56] I could be completely wrong. I don't [14:57] have the brain of a woman. [14:58] Don't make any comments about me having [15:00] the brain of a woman. Let's just say [15:01] that I start dating a woman. [15:03] >> Mhm. [15:03] >> And all of the sudden, she comes over [15:05] and she looks into my bathroom and she [15:06] just sees everything. She sees [15:10] concealer, she sees blush, she she she I [15:12] don't know, mascara, all these things. [15:14] >> think that you're cheating. [15:15] >> She would think I'm cheating. First of [15:16] all, so but then after that, she'd be [15:18] like, "So, you wear all this stuff?" And [15:19] I said, "Yes, I do." I think that that [15:22] would be like the plate crash moment in [15:25] How I Met Your Mother where everything [15:27] just falls apart cuz she would be like, [15:28] "Wow, this person is A a fraud or B very [15:31] metrosexual, which I think being metro [15:34] is a unattractive [15:37] >> I've trait or that you're trying too [15:39] hard. That's metro. [15:41] >> Oh. [15:42] No, I thought metro is just into like [15:44] female things. No, metro is not trying [15:46] too hard. [15:47] >> Okay, I don't know. That's like a [15:49] millennial term. I think it's a [15:51] >> I'm a Gen Z actually technically. [15:52] >> I'm millennial. That's like a more of a [15:54] fashion style, I'm pretty sure. But [15:57] if there's something that can make you [15:58] better looking and more attractive to [16:00] women, why wouldn't you leverage that? [16:02] You know, that doesn't really make any [16:03] sense to me. And I've never had a [16:06] girl really say anything about [16:09] makeup. And I mean, what? You're telling [16:10] me that you can't just like put this [16:12] stuff in a drawer or something. So like [16:16] these don't seem like really valid [16:18] reasons to not engage in it. Like I [16:20] think that [16:22] you're a lot better off maybe having a [16:24] stick of concealer [16:25] in your bathroom than being acne-ridden, [16:28] you know. [16:29] >> Maybe it's different if you had [16:30] lipstick. [16:31] >> Yeah. [16:31] >> Then that's maybe a little [16:32] >> one's talking about that, you know. [16:33] We're talking about, you know, maybe [16:36] just cover covering up a little bit of [16:37] blemish. We're not talking about [16:39] mascara. We're simply talking about [16:41] >> eyeliner? [16:42] >> Yeah, I mean, I just imagine a guy [16:43] crying for some some reason and it's [16:45] like coming down his face and he's at [16:46] the club cuz a girl just rejected him. [16:48] I'm like, "There's I can't imagine a [16:50] lower place to be than that." [16:53] >> Right. Yeah, but I mean, these are all [16:54] hypotheticals that aren't realistic, you [16:57] know, so [16:59] I I I'm very pro [17:01] looks max, makeup max. [17:03] >> Are there any genetic disadvantages that [17:05] are pretty much irreversible? [17:07] >> Yeah, [17:09] like having like, you know, a really [17:13] tiny skull or short face syndrome. These [17:15] are all things that are are going to be [17:18] very difficult to fix. I mean like [17:21] there's a lot of of people who are [17:24] genetic defects because maybe you're an [17:26] Accutane baby, maybe you know, [17:30] the mother was consuming too much [17:31] alcohol in the womb. Um so like a lot of [17:34] these things unfortunately are going to [17:37] be quite brutal in your life [17:39] and you know, the way people treat you. [17:42] Uh not consciously more so [17:43] subconsciously is going to be worse. And [17:45] that's a a really hard thing to say and [17:48] it's a really unfortunate reality. [17:50] Um because you know, you want to judge [17:53] people [17:54] and treat all people equally. But it's [17:56] not really something that you could [17:57] control if it's in your subconscious. [17:59] >> What genetic defect do you have that you [18:01] think is irreversible? Something that [18:03] you cannot improve. [18:04] >> I've got something called pectus [18:05] excavatum which is just a little bit of [18:08] a collapsed sternum right here um [18:12] in between my pecs. So it could be fixed [18:15] but you have to have this procedure [18:16] called the Nuss procedure where there's [18:19] a metal bar that gets inserted into your [18:21] chest. And then it pushes it up but it [18:23] takes about 6 months and you can't [18:25] train. It's extremely expensive. Um so [18:28] that's just not something that I'm [18:30] willing to undergo for just how small of [18:33] an issue it is. [18:34] >> So what genetic disadvantages are just [18:40] cope. Like they're not actually genetic [18:41] disadvantages. People just they blame [18:43] it. Oh yeah, like I'm big boned. You [18:45] know, I don't necessarily agree with [18:47] that. What what would you say are just [18:49] cope? [18:50] >> Anything that's not super visible when [18:53] you're wearing like normal clothes. Like [18:55] maybe your ab inserts or [18:58] you know, a decent amount of your muscle [19:00] inserts are not going to be the most [19:02] like life-changing thing um to have like [19:06] bodybuilder [19:08] to your perfect muscular insertions. Um [19:11] but everything matters, right? So, [19:14] there's no reason to like I don't really [19:16] think anything is is necessarily [19:18] to cope. It's just there are things that [19:20] matter more and things that matter less. [19:22] >> It's interesting. I just saw this [19:23] actually. On Twitter, they had two twins [19:26] and they looked at male pattern [19:28] baldness. And the twin that was in the [19:30] sun more, smoked more, drank more, [19:34] had a lot of thinning hair. The other [19:36] twin who didn't do any of that, led a [19:37] healthy lifestyle, low stress, too, [19:40] full head of hair. [19:41] >> Yeah, so smoking and drinking are are [19:44] very aging. [19:46] Smoking is going to be the worst thing [19:47] that you could do for your collagen. Um, [19:49] so that'll age you quite significantly. [19:52] Um, so I always heavily advocate against [19:55] both of them. And it's like people will [19:57] see me on the street sometimes smoking a [19:59] cigarette or, you know, having a drink [20:01] cuz I I do nightlife content. But I know [20:04] exactly what's going on and I think [20:06] being conscious of the fact that alcohol [20:08] or ethanol, whatever you want to call [20:10] it, is is very toxic to your body is is [20:13] a good thing because it limits my [20:15] consumption. Every time I I'm about to [20:17] have a drink, I'm like, oh, you know, [20:19] I'm weighing in my head how this is [20:21] going to affect my looks, what this is [20:22] actually doing in terms of [20:24] neurotoxicity, what it's doing to my [20:26] liver. Um, so having that always in the [20:29] back of my head helps. [20:30] >> Where is the worst place to have your [20:32] natural fat storage? [20:34] Cuz I I [20:35] I could be wrong here. Correct the [20:36] science. But everybody's body comp is [20:39] slightly different and some people store [20:40] fat more in their trunk, some people [20:42] more in like the torso area, some people [20:44] up here. Like Elon Musk, he's a little [20:46] bit more dense kind of up here than he [20:48] is down here. Me, I got kind of a a [20:50] wagon. I got kind of a caboose. That's [20:52] just how I naturally store the fat back [20:53] there. [20:54] >> is just like the [20:55] >> He's got an inner tube. [20:56] >> perpetual inner tube. [20:57] >> I do. [20:58] >> Yeah. [20:58] >> Obviously, the face is going to first [21:00] and foremost. The next I would say would [21:02] be your submental region, so right [21:04] underneath your jaw. So, if you have [21:06] like that turkey neck look, um that's [21:09] not good good good for [21:10] >> that there? Cuz I've seen some people [21:11] that appear to be decently lean, but [21:13] they do have like there's a slant, you [21:16] know what I mean? [21:16] >> Well, it's also tissue and it's also [21:18] about like your oral volume. So, the [21:21] forward growth of your jaw. So, that [21:22] it's a lot more nuanced than just uh [21:24] adipose tissue. Um but it certainly goes [21:27] into it. Um [21:28] so, I would say that's bad. Another [21:31] underrated brutal one is going to be [21:32] your mons pubis. [21:34] Um [21:35] >> Oh. [21:36] >> So, the fat pad right above your penis, [21:38] that's going to reduce your perceived [21:40] length cuz it's almost like obfuscating [21:43] where's like the the base of your shaft, [21:46] like, you know, so, your non-bone [21:48] pressed length will be like [21:50] significantly lower. [21:52] >> And where are the best places to store [21:54] fat? [21:55] >> Probably your glutes, [21:58] um [21:58] your legs, um [22:02] the [22:03] your arms and maybe like your back isn't [22:07] the most, you know, significant. But [22:09] yeah, having a lot of fat around like [22:11] your waist, your midsection, [22:14] um these are all going to be pretty bad [22:16] for your physique. [22:17] >> Yeah. [22:18] At what age does looks maxing give you [22:20] the highest ROI? [22:22] >> As young as possible, right? And that's [22:24] not saying like, oh, taking red or chew [22:26] tide and doing all this crazy [ __ ] That [22:29] just means uh consuming enough [22:30] macronutrients, eating a lot of protein, [22:33] right? Uh [22:34] enough macronutrients, supplements. Uh [22:36] all all all this kind of stuff is going [22:38] to be great, right? Um maybe being [22:40] conscious of, you know, things that are [22:43] going to affect your growth, right? So, [22:45] that's doing things like drinking. I [22:47] notice [22:48] uh nowadays it's not uncommon that [22:50] people start drinking really like [22:51] freshman year of high school and that's [22:52] such a terrible thing [22:54] um because that is going to really [22:57] really affect uh your mTOR signaling uh [23:00] which is a huge growth pathway And it's [23:02] very neurotoxic, as well. What's the [23:04] earliest that someone should looks max? [23:07] Forever. Looks maxing isn't just about [23:09] like these crazy peptides and all this [23:12] It's anything that makes you look better [23:15] um is looks maxing. [23:16] >> But like at what age? Like what's the [23:18] youngest? [clears throat] [23:19] >> what his like when I was It's as soon as [23:21] you become body conscious. Like when I [23:23] was 11, I was self-conscious that I was [23:25] fat. And so or I was self-conscious that [23:27] I was very pale. And so I was like, "I [23:28] got to get in the sun a little bit [23:29] more." But like like that is considered [23:31] looks maxing. I think what Graham is [23:32] saying is like what age do you make it [23:34] like a very strong priority where you [23:36] start, you know, actively, you know, [23:39] making that a part of your routine. [23:42] >> I think once you start coming into high [23:44] school, it's [23:46] a good idea to start being conscious of [23:48] your diet, [23:50] um to start some sort of training uh [23:52] regimen, [23:53] uh you know, maybe a a skin care [23:55] routine. [23:56] Uh and if it's earlier than that, then [23:58] then great, right? Start Starting to [24:00] wear SPF at a very early age. Like the [24:03] earlier you start to do all these [24:04] things, the better, right? [24:07] You know, so I would say as [24:10] it's just going to depend on people's [24:12] maturity levels. [24:13] >> When does surgery become more valuable [24:15] than lifestyle improvements? [24:17] >> If you're someone with like huge facial [24:20] failos, right? If you've got like this [24:22] huge nose that just is like so brutal [24:26] and you know, everyone's making fun of [24:28] you, you're not going to really be able [24:30] to compete in in the dating game, [24:33] then you could watch all the red pill [24:35] pick up artist courses and learn the [24:37] perfect game, the perfect cold approach, [24:40] but that's going to be the thing that's [24:42] holding you back. So, I think it's just [24:45] about fixing your failos, not trying to [24:49] create halos is has always been [24:52] you know, the general advice from the [24:54] looks max community. [24:55] Um does that make sense? [24:57] >> Mhm. [24:57] >> So, it's it's two motivating factors. [24:59] One, some people are motivated running [25:01] towards something, some people are [25:02] motivated running away from something, [25:04] and you would say you find the things [25:05] that you don't like, and you actively [25:07] change those. [25:08] >> Right. I mean, like, if you've got like [25:10] an average-looking eye area, you [25:12] shouldn't be trying to uh go for like uh [25:16] orbital implants to look like Sean [25:17] O'Pry. I I'm talking about, you know, if [25:20] you've got a super, super recessed uh [25:22] jaw, maybe you were like a a really bad [25:25] mouth-breather growing up, um and your [25:27] airway is completely cooked to the point [25:29] where you have sleep apnea, and it's [25:31] just not functional whatsoever, is a jaw [25:34] surgery like something to consider? [25:37] Well, I'll let your I'll let your doctor [25:39] and your maxillofacial surgeon uh answer [25:41] that question for you. But, [25:43] um [25:43] yeah, so that that's kind of the goal. [25:45] It's just about fixing the failos. [25:47] >> If you're 18 or 25 or 35 or 45 or even [25:50] 55, does your advice change? [25:53] >> Certainly, yes. Uh [25:56] you're not really going to be able to [25:58] have like this insane uh control over [26:01] your development, do something like keep [26:04] your growth plates open for a longer [26:05] period of time by taking like an [26:07] aromatase inhibitor. That won't work uh [26:09] past a certain age. [26:11] >> Past what age? [26:12] >> It's going to depend, but somewhere [26:13] around like 17, 18 is usually when males [26:16] stop growing. But, I mean, for some [26:18] people it could be as late as 20, 21, or [26:20] even earlier than that, you know, so [26:21] just it really depends. [26:23] >> So, if you're 45 and you're physically [26:25] just cooked, [26:27] wouldn't making more money simply have [26:29] the best result? [26:30] >> No, because think about it, right? Going [26:33] from a six out of 10 to an eight out of [26:35] 10 um is [26:38] you know, more of a marginal thing than [26:41] um [26:42] but it's going to have a huge, huge um [26:45] result, you know, much more achievable [26:47] than going from making $100,000 to a [26:50] million dollars. That's not going to be [26:52] uh even close to achievable for the [26:54] average person. Um and it really isn't [26:57] going to do much. Women are [27:00] super able to perceive income. And like [27:03] there's a lot of memes about like what [27:05] is your average salary requirement when [27:07] dating? And like the answers will just [27:09] be like so absurd. [27:10] >> Do you think they really believe that? [27:12] Or do you think those clips are just [27:13] selectively picking the people who say [27:15] ridiculous numbers? [27:16] >> I think it's [27:18] it's a true belief, you know. [27:20] Uh because I've I've you know, I [27:22] typically ask girls like you know, [27:24] what's a good amount of money for a guy [27:26] to make a month, you know, for you to [27:28] qualify them as someone you'd want to [27:31] date? And I was doing a stream with a [27:33] girl last night who said 500k a month. [27:35] >> But that's you're also in Miami. Is she [27:38] from here? [27:39] >> So a regular [27:40] >> Where is she from? How old is she? [27:42] >> Uh like Maryland. She's 18. [27:43] >> you though. That's I think that that is [27:45] >> It's like a it's a random girl from like [27:48] Maryland or something. [27:49] >> I would like to get a different poll, [27:51] like a poll on the street. I think it [27:53] would be so curious. [27:54] >> You want me to Dude, I could do it. [27:56] >> If it would vary from like Las Vegas to [27:58] Miami to Los Angeles to like I bet most [28:01] would be My bet is most would say [28:04] 150 grand a year. [28:07] We'll see if I can motivate myself [28:08] before this post to go out and ask five [28:10] girls just some place in Vegas and I'll [28:12] stitch it in right here. [28:13] And that would be incredible. [28:15] >> I I'd be curious. It could be a Miami [28:16] thing, quite honestly, or or an LA [28:19] thing. But um [28:20] >> Vegas also probably is not the best [28:21] place. [28:22] >> thing was she on stream? [28:24] >> Yeah. [28:25] >> So I feel like that also gets like the [28:26] higher she says, the more people pay [28:27] attention to her, the more people talk [28:28] about her. And so it benefits her to say [28:28] like, "Oh, yeah, a million dollars a [28:29] month minimum to date me." And then you [28:30] get banter back and forth. It keeps her [28:31] on stream longer. Versus if you're [28:31] saying 8,000 a month, you'd be like, [28:32] "All right." And then move on to the [28:33] next one. Yeah. But I think once again, [28:33] like a lot of girls are going to say a [28:34] million dollars a month minimum to date [28:35] me. And then you get banter back and [28:36] forth. It keeps her on stream longer. [28:38] Versus if you're saying 8,000 [28:42] a month, you'd be like, "All right." And [28:44] then move on to the next one. [28:45] >> Yeah, but I think once again, [28:48] like a lot of girls [28:50] like don't really know like how much [28:53] things cost, like how much it costs to [28:56] live in in these big cities. [28:58] So, there's just not a huge grasp on [29:00] like what's going on, you know, because [29:02] there's a lot of people that [ __ ] [29:03] also. It's like you can lease [29:06] or finance like a Corvette, [29:10] which is a $100,000 car [29:12] and be on car payments for 8 years and a [29:15] girl will think you're rich, right? But [29:17] sometimes it's not the case. [29:19] >> Would you not believe a girl if you [29:21] started dating her and she said, "Yeah, [29:23] I wouldn't care if you weren't making [29:24] this kind of money. Like if you were [29:26] making 5K a month, I'd be fine with it. [29:28] Like I enjoy hanging out with you." [29:31] >> I don't think I would. [29:34] Because it's like, you know, maybe [29:36] you're not immediately spending like [29:39] all this money going on like these super [29:40] expensive dates and then the girl's [29:42] like, "Oh, you know, you see, I'm not [29:44] with you for the money." But like, you [29:46] know, then we're living in, you know, [29:49] like crazy apartments, going on like [29:51] private jets and, you know, that that's [29:54] just the environment she gets used to, [29:56] you know. So, it's not the immediate [29:58] like [30:00] what she's spending on her credit card, [30:01] it's more so just like the environment. [30:03] >> if she wasn't used to that? What if it [30:05] was just like 5K a month is all she's [30:08] experienced? [30:09] She says she's fine with that. Would you [30:11] believe that? And really quick, I just [30:13] got to say that anyone who knows me [30:15] knows I love auctions. I'm always [30:17] browsing classic cars, original movie [30:19] art, trading cards, all of it. So, when [30:22] today's sponsor Whatnot reached out, it [30:24] was an easy yes. It's that whole live [30:27] auction experience right on your phone. [30:28] And we're giving away $500 in Whatnot [30:31] credit a little later. So, stick around. [30:33] Whatnot is the number one live stream [30:35] shopping app. You can score Pokémon [30:36] cards, sports cards, toys, LEGOs, Funko [30:39] Pops, electronics, tools, coins, even [30:41] snacks, candy, meat, and seafood. Now, [30:44] the livestreams are where all the action [30:46] is. You hop in, see something you want, [30:48] and swipe to grab it right from your [30:50] phone. Here's an example, by the way. [30:51] I'm going to try to get a good deal. I [30:53] won! $4. There we go. [30:56] Oh my gosh. [30:58] I have so much fun doing this. [31:01] I won that one. Only a dollar. Oh my [31:02] gosh, someone's sleeping on it. [31:05] I won it again, only a dollar. Oh my [31:07] god. Iced Coffee Hour won the auction. [31:08] There we go. But, you don't have to [31:10] catch a show to shop. Flash sales and [31:12] buy it now lets you pick up something [31:13] instantly. You can also chat with the [31:15] sellers or other collectors while it's [31:17] all going down, and most of these shops [31:19] are small businesses that you're [31:20] supporting directly. Plus, with over 100 [31:22] categories, Whatnot really does have [31:24] something for everybody. Use our link or [31:26] scan the QR code to get $15 off your [31:28] first purchase anywhere on the app. [31:30] That's [31:31] whatnot.com/invite/icedcoffeehour. [31:35] And here's something crazy. If you [31:36] follow us on Whatnot, you are [31:37] automatically entered to win $500 in [31:40] Whatnot credit, and the winner is picked [31:42] 1 month from today. One more time, that [31:43] is whatnot.com/invite/icedcoffeehour, [31:46] or just click the link down below in the [31:48] description. [31:49] You know, ever since I was young, I [31:50] realized that if I wanted to build [31:52] wealth, I had to be intentional with [31:54] every single dollar. And that's been my [31:56] story throughout the years. Skip the [31:58] Starbucks, invest, watch every expense. [32:01] But, I constantly see people who have no [32:03] idea where their money's actually going. [32:05] And that's why we partnered with [32:06] Monarch. Monarch is the personal finance [32:08] app that tracks literally everything [32:10] from accounts to investments, savings [32:12] goals, and spending. And honestly, [32:14] everything I used to do by hand, I'm [32:15] talking like the budgeting, tracking [32:16] every account, checking if I was on [32:18] pace, Monarch does all of it in one [32:21] place. If I were starting out my wealth [32:23] journey today, this is what I'd be using [32:25] because it's just so effective and so [32:27] simple. Like, most apps only tell you [32:29] what you've already spent, but Monarch [32:31] helps you set goals, map out big [32:33] purchases, and see if you're actually on [32:35] track before it's too late to adjust. [32:37] Plus, you can ask Monarch's AI assistant [32:39] anything about your finances like how [32:41] much did I spend on travel last summer [32:42] or can I afford this vacation without [32:44] touching my savings? It also gives you a [32:46] heads-up on what's happening with your [32:47] money with the AI weekly recap. It flags [32:50] spending spikes, net worth shifts, and [32:52] upcoming expenses. So, write your own [32:54] money story with Monarch. Use code iced [32:56] coffee at monarch.com to get your first [32:58] year of Monarch core half off at just [33:00] $50. That's 50% off your first year at [33:02] monarch.com with code iced coffee. [33:05] >> What if she wasn't used to that? What if [33:06] it was just like 5K a month is all she's [33:09] experienced? [33:11] She says she's fine with that. Would you [33:12] believe that? [33:14] >> It really just depends on how old the [33:15] girl is, where she's from because 5K a [33:18] month you're not going to really be able [33:20] to live in Miami [33:22] for that much. [33:23] >> How much do you need to live in Miami? [33:25] >> I wouldn't want to live anywhere near [33:27] Miami for less than $10,000 a month. [33:29] >> $10,000 a month? [33:30] >> Yeah, I think that's a good answer cuz I [33:32] think that [33:33] um rent is probably going to start [33:36] around two to 3K, maybe in like [33:40] Edgewater. Like good luck in Brickell. [33:42] Like you're not living in Brickell, [33:43] you're not living [33:45] in downtown for for, you know, less than [33:48] in 5 to 6K, you know, even for like some [33:51] of these [33:52] one or two bedroom apartments. [33:54] And then you have your car payment, you [33:56] have groceries, and you know, God forbid [33:58] you want to put away a single dollar uh [34:00] in your savings account, then [34:02] it's just not it's not worth living [34:03] here, you know? And I see a lot of [34:05] people who have um this online income, [34:08] uh you know, they start making a little [34:10] bit of money and they move to Miami. [34:12] It's like, why? You don't need to be [34:13] here. There's no no reason for that [34:15] whatsoever. You might as well live [34:16] somewhere [34:17] uh with a super low cost of living and [34:19] put some money away. [34:20] >> At what point are people chasing [34:22] improvements that no one will [34:24] realistically notice? [34:26] >> Well, it certainly gets there [34:28] like within a few years of looks maxing [34:33] because if you look at it like a pie [34:34] chart, right? You're going to get about [34:36] 70% of what's able to be accomplished [34:39] from your body fat percentage from lean [34:41] maxing. And maybe you throw another 20 [34:43] towards [34:44] um like your coloring, you know? That's [34:47] going to be like how tan you are, your [34:48] contrast, your dying your hair, [34:50] whatever. And then maybe a little bit is [34:52] going to be your physique [34:54] um and then your skin quality and once [34:56] you like achieve these things, it really [34:59] becomes more about than like finding the [35:01] next endeavor. [35:03] >> So you would say if you were to give [35:05] broad advice to the average person [35:06] watching this right now, which most [35:08] people are probably not going to be of [35:09] the looks maxing community. It's just [35:11] guys between the ages of 18 and 35. [35:13] >> Mhm. [35:13] >> The most broad advice that you would [35:15] give would just say get lean. [35:17] >> 10 to 12% body fat, yep. And creating [35:19] contrast [35:20] is a key thing as well. That's what I'm [35:22] talking about your coloring. [35:23] >> So you think it would be beneficial for [35:25] me to probably dye my eyebrows? [35:27] >> Uh no, I think your eyebrows are quite [35:29] dark, but I think you would have a lot [35:30] more contrast to your face [35:32] you know, with your blue eyes if you [35:34] were more tan. [35:35] That's also going to create more [35:36] contrast with your sclera, which is the [35:38] whites of your eyes. [35:39] >> I see I would be worried. I I actually [35:41] started taking eye drops because I I did [35:43] notice that I look a little weird when [35:45] my eyes are all red. I think it looks [35:46] better to have like clear white eyes. [35:47] >> It's a health indicator. [35:48] >> Yeah, but the only thing is that I'm so [35:50] worried about getting my face tan [35:52] because I have one sun spot and I just [35:53] don't want more to appear. [35:54] >> Mhm. [35:55] Yeah, I mean [35:56] >> Melanotan is probably [35:58] >> No, Melanotan would probably exacerbate [36:00] that. So there there's different laser [36:03] treatments or things of that nature to [36:05] try to remove those. Looks like you have [36:08] uh you know, post inflammatory marks. [36:13] Um so like hyperpigmentation. [36:15] >> Oh yeah, this is melasma. [36:17] >> Okay. Oh, all right. That's yeah, that's [36:19] going to be a little bit more difficult [36:20] to treat. [36:21] Um so what you notice when you get super [36:23] tan that exacerbates like it looks more [36:25] obvious. take [36:26] >> to like remove it. [36:28] >> Okay. [36:29] >> Yeah. [36:29] >> Um how long has it been there? [36:31] >> It's gotten worse over the I mean not [36:32] worse, it's kind of stayed the same, but [36:34] maybe three or four years at this point. [36:36] >> Um yeah, then that's certainly something [36:37] to consider. I mean you could always [36:39] throw like an SPF that's super high um [36:42] and make sure it has like PA+++ in that [36:45] region. [36:46] Um you know, cuz you know, it would [36:48] almost blend in if you the rest of your [36:50] face was more tan. Um so that's [36:52] something to consider. I really like um [36:55] trying to be as striking as possible and [36:58] you know, the contrast with the tan [36:59] between your sclera and your teeth, it's [37:01] really important. [37:01] >> What causes that? Is that just being in [37:03] the sun without sunscreen? [37:05] >> Um [37:05] >> Yeah, and it's the thinning of your skin [37:07] as well. Because you have it kind of on [37:09] like the subdermal or whatever it is, [37:11] like the the skin underneath. And then [37:13] as you get older, you typically lose [37:15] facial fat, and then as it gets closer, [37:17] it just tends to push out more and the [37:19] sun will also exacerbate the coloring. [37:21] >> It's not exactly losing facial fat. What [37:24] starts to occur is you lose elastin, [37:26] which keeps everything in place, and [37:28] gravity takes course and it migrates [37:30] down. So that's why you notice [37:32] um the fat starts to accumulate on these [37:34] folds, [37:35] um the nasolabial folds, and you start [37:38] to get jowls a little later into life. [37:40] That's just gravity and elastin loss. [37:42] >> So you know what's funny? I was in you'd [37:44] probably appreciate this. I was in [37:46] Korea, it's the first time I've [37:47] mentioned this on the podcast, in March. [37:49] And I knew that they were popular for [37:51] skin care. And so I thought, I'm going [37:53] to book myself a skin care appointment. [37:54] You know, maybe they can laser this [37:56] thing off. I had no idea what I was [37:57] getting into. [37:58] Showed up to the appointment, and I was [38:00] with my friend. My friend's like 10 [38:01] years older than me. [38:03] 15. And he was like going through [38:05] everything. They were like, you need [38:06] this, this, this, and this. [38:08] What do you want? And he said, [38:08] everything. And then they turned to me [38:10] and she said, what do you want? This, [38:12] this, this, and this. And I was like, I [38:13] mean if he's getting everything, I guess [38:14] I'll get everything, too. [38:16] And then I go to the Apple Pay, and it [38:17] was in the foreign currency, and so I [38:19] didn't really know. Tap the Apple Pay, [38:21] $3,500. [38:22] >> Okay. [38:23] >> And they ended up I was in there for [38:26] they kept it open past closing for about [38:28] 8 hours. The entire procedure, [38:30] everything. And they were lasering [38:32] everything on my face. They did several [38:34] different ones. One was actually to move [38:36] the muscles up like you said to prevent [38:38] jowls. And then they also did another [38:41] one that was like burning off small [38:44] wrinkles [38:44] >> Yeah. [38:45] >> on your face. It was a laser treatment, [38:46] I believe. [38:47] >> Yeah. [38:47] >> It was a laser treatment. I did that as [38:48] well. I got collagen injected and Botox [38:51] injected and then one other thing [38:52] injected as well. I don't really [38:53] remember. [38:53] >> You did Botox, okay. [38:54] >> Yeah, but I also had one of them felt [38:56] like they were like like pulling with [38:58] strings. [38:59] >> Oh, that's like PDO threads, yeah. [39:01] >> I don't know if I got the strings [39:02] though. It just felt like they were. It [39:04] was like they were putting the needle in [39:05] and then moving it around. [39:06] >> Yeah, that'd be PDO That wound you. [39:08] >> And like I literally almost quit [39:11] probably a dozen times within the [39:12] session cuz I it was so uncomfortable. [39:14] And I also was so frustrated I didn't [39:16] know what I was signing. Like honest to [39:17] god, I had no idea what I was [39:19] >> Jack sent me a photo and he had the [39:21] numbing cream on for a couple hours. [39:24] >> I had blood like on my face cuz they [39:25] injected so many different things. They [39:27] also did micro needling. They did that. [39:29] >> Yeah, there's a lot of of things that [39:31] are cope in like the whole med spa [39:34] world, but micro needling is great. [39:36] Really good for your collagen, hair hair [39:38] growth. You know, there's certain types [39:40] of lasers that are a little less [39:41] effective, but usually the more invasive [39:44] ones that have a longer recovery time, [39:46] like they do work like ablative CO2 [39:48] laser. Like yeah, you're going to have [39:50] to stay out of the sun and stay inside [39:52] probably about 3 4 weeks, but the [39:54] results are going to be like tremendous [39:56] compared to like the fractional CO2 [39:58] laser that you heal in a week, it's [40:00] results aren't as pronounced, you [40:03] >> How much time do you typically spend [40:04] researching all this stuff? Because your [40:06] understanding of pharmacology, how [40:07] different things interact with, you [40:09] know, foreign substances with your body, [40:11] it's really impressive, especially with [40:13] just like being 20 years old. Not to [40:15] slight the age or anything, but I'm [40:17] curious, how do you do all this [40:18] research? And how much time do you [40:20] spend? [40:21] >> Well, it's, you know, [40:23] years of accumulation, right? So, in [40:26] high school, I wasn't really a social [40:28] guy. I was kind of just on my computer [40:30] all day, like reading about the stuff. [40:32] And, you know, even to this day, [40:34] I'm probably spending like an hour just [40:37] looking into new things, reading [40:40] new literature that comes out. [40:41] >> you When you say literature, are you [40:42] actually looking at like studies and [40:44] stuff, or is it like Reddit and Twitter [40:45] and Yeah. [40:46] >> Yeah, most mostly literature, cuz Reddit [40:48] is just like anecdotes. And I think [40:50] that's important, certainly to research, [40:53] um you know, people's experience with [40:55] different things, cuz it's important, [40:57] but uh it's more so about understanding [41:00] the safety of things, um [41:03] you know, control groups, [41:05] and, you know, the actual mechanism, how [41:07] the drug works. Uh you need to [41:09] understand these things really, really [41:11] proficiently, [41:12] um before you start looking into what [41:14] other people on Reddit are doing. [41:16] >> So, if someone wanted to try GLP-1s, or [41:19] peptides, or any of the things that [41:21] you've mentioned, like the hard maxing [41:22] stuff, how much how many hours of [41:24] research before they do it should they [41:25] realistically put in? [41:27] >> I think you could get a a pretty [41:29] sufficient understanding of how GLP-1s [41:33] work in a few hours. It's not uh the [41:36] most complex thing in the world. And [41:38] even further than that, you're going to [41:40] be relying on medical experts, right? [41:43] You should be going to your doctor uh [41:45] about this kind of stuff. Reddit is not [41:47] an FDA-approved uh treatment yet, but it [41:50] will be, right? And so, for now, you're [41:52] going to get prescribed probably [41:54] Mounjaro, um tirzepatide. Um so, you're [41:58] doing your research, you're [41:59] understanding how it works, you're [42:00] understanding how to reconstitute the [42:02] peptide, and then you're having a a [42:04] doctor with years and years of medical [42:06] training to oversee it, you know? [42:09] And I'm pretty confident in in talking [42:11] about these peptides and recommending [42:12] them [42:13] uh cuz you know it's very very difficult [42:17] to [ __ ] up on peptides, right? Even if [42:19] you injected the entire vial of retatide [42:22] or [42:24] something like that, you know, it's not [42:25] like that's the lethal dose. [42:27] You know, nothing really would happen. [42:29] >> What looks maxing advice that's out [42:31] there right now is actually harmful? [42:34] >> I've seen a lot of different stuff about [42:37] people installing dental appliances, [42:41] like screwing in like an MSE themselves. [42:44] I've seen people self-performing [42:47] like gyno removal [42:50] surgery, like literally like cutting [42:52] open their [42:54] glandular tissue and removing it. [42:56] >> What? [42:57] >> So like a lot of you've seen this? [42:59] >> I've never seen videos, but I know what [43:00] gyno is. [43:01] >> Oh my god. [43:02] >> I've seen one where people cut their [43:03] medial canthus [43:05] with a knife. That's like really bad. [43:08] >> Seriously, so it's mostly people [43:09] performing these surgeries on [43:11] themselves. [43:12] >> done by professionals. [43:13] >> Or really what it is is just making [43:14] decisions without consulting [43:15] professionals. [43:16] >> Correct, yeah. [43:18] So most of what I talk about, I always [43:20] say this has to be done under the [43:23] supervision of a doctor because people [43:25] aren't going to understand you know how [43:27] to use something like an HGH you know [43:29] earlier into their life and they're just [43:31] not going to give a [ __ ] to do the [43:32] research. They're just going to randomly [43:33] pin it. And if they don't understand [43:35] about like their blood glucose levels, [43:38] they're going to eat a bunch of carbs [43:39] and then take HGH and then you know, [43:41] they're going to be pre-diabetic pretty [43:43] pretty soon, right? So whereas a doctor [43:46] would come in and make sure to clarify [43:47] that and make sure they understand fully [43:50] how to use these things. [43:51] And then you know, maybe they could get [43:53] some some results. Or same thing with [43:55] testosterone. If someone just starts [43:56] randomly pinning test without realizing [43:59] that it's going to convert to DHT and [44:01] give them severe hair loss, [44:04] then you know, they're going to be [44:05] screwed, right? And they're actually [44:06] going to looksmax in a lot of cases. [44:09] >> Do you think someone could become less [44:10] attractive simply because they're trying [44:12] too hard? [44:13] >> Yeah, most definitely. Yeah. [44:15] >> And where do you draw that line? [44:16] >> Uh a lot of it comes from like fitness [44:19] advice, right? Like people will say [44:21] caloric surplus, [44:22] um 500 mg of testosterone, [44:25] um that's going to make you fat and [44:27] acne-ridden and bald, right? If that's [44:30] if that's where it ends, right? But [44:32] maybe just a TRT uh so that you're more [44:35] energetic throughout the day, uh so your [44:38] face masculinizes a little bit and your [44:40] body [44:41] uh like sort of recomps. That's a lot [44:44] more uh of of a looksmax than the [44:46] traditional bodybuilder blast the [ __ ] [44:49] out of roids uh eat 12 meals a day type [44:52] advice. [44:52] >> What about the act of trying too hard? [44:55] Like the fact that you care so much [44:57] about it makes you less attractive. Only [45:00] because you care. [45:01] >> Even if your decisions and mentality are [45:03] not born out of insecurity, that's how a [45:05] lot of people will perceive it. And I [45:07] think they see insecurity as an [45:08] unattractive thing. [45:09] >> Yeah, no, absolutely. Um but I think you [45:12] know, you have to just realize that you [45:14] can make observations about the world uh [45:17] even if you're you're being fully [45:19] objective and your reasoning was [45:22] uh different research they did on on [45:24] dating and, you know, how the top 20% of [45:28] profiles get all the attention. [45:30] Um and if you, you know, look at [45:31] research about like the interview [45:33] process and how less qualified [45:36] applicants who are better looking are [45:37] getting these jobs. [45:39] Um and then you decided, "Hey, I'm going [45:40] to looksmax. This makes sense." [45:42] Uh that's not insecurity. [45:44] The average person's not going to be [45:45] capable of uh being an entrepreneur and [45:49] having some insane AI or or tech startup [45:52] that's successful. [45:53] >> Then wouldn't you think the people that [45:54] are able to do that are already their [45:57] outliers? [46:00] >> They're they're genetic outliers with [46:03] typically [46:04] above average IQ. [46:06] >> Do you think people should aspire to do [46:08] that? [46:08] >> It's genetic, you know? [46:11] Um, that's why like all the advice about [46:13] don't go to college, college is bull. [46:16] It's like, yeah, maybe you were able to [46:19] transcend the requirements of having a a [46:22] college degree because you're super [46:24] creative, super innovative, and [46:26] extremely smart, but the average person [46:29] is not. The average person's pretty [46:30] [ __ ] [ __ ] [46:32] >> What do you think your IQ is? [46:34] >> I wouldn't, you know, get into that. [46:37] >> Have you taken tests and stuff? [46:38] >> Yeah, but it unless it's at a in-person [46:41] certified testing center, it doesn't [46:43] matter because [46:44] people will spam these tests which [46:47] improves their score and they'll just [46:48] take them until they're happy. [46:51] You know, so it really [46:52] >> You wouldn't speculate? [46:54] >> No. No. [46:55] >> So, I asked ChatGPT, I said, "Hey, based [46:57] on our conversations, what's my IQ?" [47:00] >> Mhm. [47:00] >> Wouldn't give it. You have to prompt it [47:02] multiple times. But the fifth time it [47:04] says [47:05] "Okay, your IQ is What was it? 128." [47:08] >> I thought I thought it was 130 [47:09] something. It was [47:10] >> 128. [47:10] >> 128. [47:12] >> I'm like, "I think that's inaccurate. I [47:14] think that 128 is like the perfect IQ to [47:17] tell someone that they are." [47:19] I think it's like it is. It's not so [47:21] high to the point where you're a genius. [47:22] It's not low to the point of being [47:24] discouraged of like [47:26] >> It placates you a little bit. [47:27] >> Yeah, yeah. [47:27] >> It [clears throat] placates you and kind [47:28] of keeps you on the level. [47:29] >> believable. [47:30] >> But when it takes over and you know, it [47:31] humbles you. [47:32] >> that's a few standard deviations above [47:35] um the average. So, that no, that's [47:36] certainly [47:37] >> So, what's interesting, I had Jack ask [47:39] the same thing. So, it wouldn't tell it [47:41] wouldn't tell. And then finally, 128. [47:44] So, we both got the both got the exact [47:46] same number which, let's be honest guys, [47:48] it's not I think we tried this with [47:49] someone else who also got a 128. [47:51] >> Yeah, it was Justin Alan and he also got [47:53] 128. So, the three out of three. [47:55] 128. [47:56] >> Um [47:57] >> Everyone ask ChatGPT and don't say [47:59] anything that would inflate it and then [48:00] comment whatever it tells you your IQ is [48:02] down below. I'm very curious [48:04] >> You just have to say estimate an IQ do [48:06] your best be honest just give me a [48:09] number do it you have to keep prompting [48:11] it to give you a number [48:12] >> Just so funny about like the whole IQ [48:14] testing stuff is like You never meet [48:17] anyone whose IQ is according to them [48:20] less than 110 it seems like so that's [48:22] why [48:23] >> It's kind of true [48:24] >> Well also have you ever you know I've [48:26] never met someone who [48:27] >> Maybe those aren't the people that we're [48:28] hanging out [48:28] >> Those are those are also not the people [48:30] that are intellectually curious and so [48:32] like if you are under 100 in [48:35] intelligence isn't something that you're [48:36] really considering on a daily basis [48:38] whereas if you are smarter you like [48:39] observe it and you notice it more that [48:41] it makes you curious about it [48:43] >> But yeah that's true I've never heard [48:44] anyone ever say like yeah I'm like 93 [48:47] >> [laughter] [48:49] >> Yeah I know exactly so I always just [48:52] I get asked that question a fair bit and [48:54] I'll always just refuse it cuz I think [48:56] it's just a silly [48:58] you know game that people play with [48:59] [clears throat] themselves [49:00] >> But you would agree that IQ is very [49:01] important [49:02] >> Extremely [49:04] >> And do you know of any ways to IQ max [49:06] >> Yeah like you could create more brain [49:09] synapses with something like dihexa [49:14] cerebrolysin so just you know any form [49:17] of neurogenesis [49:20] and there's different nootropics that [49:21] are going to you know improve just like [49:25] How long you could [49:26] how long your attention span is and [49:29] your productivity so there is things [49:31] that you can do to like IQ max but it's [49:35] a little bit nuanced [49:36] >> What's more attractive to a woman more [49:38] knowledge or more intelligence [49:40] >> More intelligence [49:42] >> Is more attractive than knowledge [49:44] >> Really I think knowledge is cuz [49:45] knowledge to me just seems practical [49:47] intelligence maybe I'm just [49:49] misinterpreting is is more like what you [49:51] know about the world but knowledge is [49:53] like to me it just seems like you could [49:54] apply it. Like I have knowledge about [49:57] this thing and this thing and this thing [49:58] and I could apply it today. [50:00] >> Mhm. [50:01] >> Knowledge is like understanding of [50:03] things. So like [50:04] >> it'd be vice versa. [50:05] >> Yeah, I would say it was probably vice [50:07] versa. Like knowledge is like like I can [50:09] recite every state and their capitals. [50:11] And then intelligence is like [50:13] how well you pattern recognize and like [50:15] the decision-making engine behind [50:16] things. It's not necessarily like you [50:18] could be incredibly intelligent as a [50:20] 5-year-old. It's hard to be very [50:21] knowledgeable as a 5-year-old. [50:23] >> Yeah, right. And um [50:25] like maybe you could tell like cool a [50:27] cool stories [50:29] uh about ancient Greece to a girl on a [50:31] date. But at the end of the day you're [50:34] >> They like that. [50:35] >> Yeah, they they [50:37] um well well whatever, just you know, [50:39] talk about current events. Um but [50:42] you know, eventually it gets to the [50:43] point where if your decision-making and [50:46] your understanding of uh you know, just [50:49] the world is is is severely damaged, [50:51] then um you know, all these cool stories [50:54] and little facts that you know don't [50:56] really mean anything. [50:57] >> Are there any cosmetic surgeries out [50:59] there that you believe are just [51:00] overrated? [51:01] >> PDO threads are pretty cope. Um I've [51:04] experimented with them. Uh and they're [51:07] not so great. [51:09] I would say filler is probably the worst [51:10] one. [51:11] Uh filler is actually terrible. So so [51:14] filler is actually going to cosmetically [51:16] descend people in a lot of cases um [51:19] because it's meant to replicate soft [51:20] tissue. It's not meant to replicate [51:22] bone. Uh so if you're just injecting [51:24] absurd amounts of filler into your jaw [51:26] and your cheekbones to make them appear [51:28] more prominent, doesn't doesn't work. [51:30] It's just going to migrate uh and not [51:33] have the aesthetic result that you want [51:35] after about 2 weeks. [51:36] >> Have you ever put filler in? [51:37] >> Ne- never. Never will. Never would. [51:40] >> What about your nose job? [51:41] >> Mhm. [51:42] >> That was something I saw and I'm seeing [51:43] it now. I I notice much of a difference. [51:46] >> Yep, that's the point. It was a [51:48] intended to be um a super super [51:52] non-invasive thing. I didn't have any [51:55] modification of the bone [51:57] uh up here. It was just an alarplasty. [51:59] So, really just about reducing the width [52:01] of my nostrils by a couple millimeters. [52:04] >> So, when I was seeing clips of you after [52:06] the nose job, [52:07] I think that they were being edited. [52:09] >> Mhm. [52:09] >> Because you looked like sad and it [52:11] looked like botched and I was like, oh [52:12] man, like this, you know, [52:14] >> That's what happened. [52:15] >> But then I was surprised because I [52:16] remember when we met how meticulous and [52:18] calculated you seemed to be about [52:19] things. I'm like, there's no way that he [52:20] like would go in and botch. Like if [52:23] anyone's going to botch a surgery, I [52:24] feel like it wouldn't be You have too [52:26] much riding on it and you you'd plan too [52:28] much. [52:29] And it looked botched. But yeah, in [52:30] person I was very surprised how actually [52:32] it looks very similar to how you were. [52:34] >> Yeah, no, I wasn't trying to have a [52:36] completely, you know, different face. It [52:39] was meant to just fix a a small flaw of [52:41] mine, which was my um you know, [52:45] mouth-to-nose ratio. Uh my nose was a [52:47] little bit too wide with being relative [52:51] to how wide my mouth was and [52:53] I improved it, right? So, of course, [52:55] the day, you know, the week after you [52:57] get a rhinoplasty, you're going to be [52:59] swollen and it's not going to [53:02] look as complete. Uh and it takes about [53:04] a year, by the way, for the swelling to [53:06] fully go down and for the the final [53:08] result. Um so, right now it's been about [53:10] 5 weeks. So, it'll only look better and [53:13] better. [53:14] >> Do you have any more surgeries coming [53:15] up? [53:16] >> Now, one of the frustrating things about [53:17] a regular debit card is that it's [53:19] completely passive. You swipe, money [53:21] leaves your account, and that's the [53:22] whole relationship. Nothing ever comes [53:24] back to you. That's why we've actually [53:26] partnered with Cash App because it's [53:28] built to actually do something with the [53:30] money you're already spending, and you [53:32] manage all of it right in the app. It's [53:34] super easy to send money and track your [53:36] spending, and you can even customize [53:38] your Cash App card to make it your own. [53:40] So, make it cool. Cash App does a lot [53:42] more than you think when it comes to [53:43] having your back and making sure your [53:44] money stays your money. In fact, CashApp [53:46] just released a new status program for [53:48] the way people actually spend called [53:50] CashApp Green. And now when you spend at [53:52] least $500 a month with the CashApp [53:54] card, you are in green status which [53:56] unlocks benefits like up to $200 of free [53:59] overdraft coverage. If you overdraft [54:00] unexpectedly, there are no hidden fees. [54:02] You also unlock higher borrow limits and [54:04] custom personalized cashback offers [54:06] every Friday at places you love to shop. [54:09] Turn everyday spending into status with [54:11] CashApp Green. Just download CashApp [54:13] today or visit cash.app to learn more [54:15] about this and other financial benefits. [54:17] New CashApp customers can earn $10 if [54:19] they use code cashapp10 in their profile [54:22] on sign up and send $5 to a friend [54:24] within 14 days. Terms apply. CashApp is [54:26] a financial services platform, not a [54:28] bank. Banking services provided by [54:29] CashApp's bank partners. Prepaid debit [54:31] cards issued by Sutton Bank, member [54:32] FDIC. CashApp Visa debit flex cards [54:35] issued by Sutton Bank, member FDIC and [54:37] The Bancorp Bank NA pursuant to a [54:39] license from Visa USA Inc. See terms and [54:41] conditions for the Sutton prepaid card, [54:43] Sutton debit flex card, and Bancorp [54:44] debit flex card. CashApp green features [54:46] saving, direct deposit, roundups, [54:48] overdraft coverage, and discounts [54:49] provided by CashApp, a Block Inc. brand. [54:51] Visit cash.app/legal/podcast [54:54] for full disclosures. Do you have any [54:55] more surgeries coming up? [54:57] Uh no, not I mean not really. Why is [55:01] that? Well, I spammed like I did like a [55:03] lot of stuff at once. That's probably [55:05] why. I also looked like really weird as [55:08] I got wisdom teeth removal right after [55:10] that. So my face was all [55:12] puffy and bloated and my nose had a cast [55:16] and I had surgery on my ears so they [55:17] were all black and blue. [55:19] Um so people were like, "Wow, this guy [55:21] looks all [ __ ] up." Uh but I just [55:22] needed to recover. Are you going to get [55:24] braces? [55:26] Uh yeah, I have Invisalign currently. [55:28] Yeah, in my pocket. I just take it out [55:30] for interviews. [55:32] What would you say men look for in [55:33] women? [55:34] Uh I would say that men look for women [55:38] who are modest Uh [55:40] and [55:41] who sort of are a good reflection on [55:43] them. [55:45] Right? If your girl is just like, you [55:48] know, going and and being obnoxious, [55:51] poor mannered when you're out to dinner [55:53] for example, that's like also a [55:55] reflection on you [55:57] even if you're the most respectful [55:59] person in the world. So, it's it's an [56:04] your girlfriend is an extension of you [56:05] and vice versa. [56:07] >> Yeah. If Henry Cavill is like the number [56:10] one most attractive man or [56:12] >> Yeah, people talk about Matt Bomer [56:13] versus Henry Cavill a but [56:16] >> One of the two. I mean, most people [56:17] would isolate it to both of them. I'm [56:20] curious, who is the most traditionally [56:22] attractive woman? [56:23] >> It's funny because like female models [56:26] get paid so much more [56:29] than male models do [56:31] and yet, you know, [56:33] a lot more of the discussion just [56:36] amongst the looks maxing community and [56:38] all these forums would be more male [56:40] oriented. [56:42] Not necessarily because it's like [56:44] anything to do with, you know, it being [56:45] gay or whatever. It's just people are [56:47] talking about men's aesthetics and it's [56:48] a men's aesthetics [56:50] community at the end of the day. Women [56:53] could looks max just as men can but [56:55] looks maxing was kind of created as like [56:58] a more male centered space. [57:01] But I would say that [57:03] there's a couple of the earlier 2000s [57:06] Victoria Secret models could be Tom [57:09] Brady's ex-wife would could be one of [57:12] the highest scoring in terms of facial [57:14] harmony but, you know, maybe some people [57:16] have a preference for like a different [57:19] phenotype than hers. [57:21] But I would say she's probably up there. [57:23] >> So, that's interesting. You just [57:24] mentioned some people have a preference [57:26] for a different phenotype. But the whole [57:27] idea of looks maxing is it's not about [57:29] preference for phenotype. It's just [57:31] objective science-based [57:34] >> Correct. Yeah, but there's [57:35] >> attraction. [57:35] >> Yeah, so maybe you weigh coloring out a [57:38] little bit heavier. I think that's where [57:41] being subjective kind of comes into it. [57:44] You know, so like preferring like [57:47] Adriana Lima for example, [57:49] has worse facial ratios, but [57:52] she's more striking, right? And she's [57:54] got like these super piercing blue eyes, [57:56] really tan skin, and brown hair. Versus [58:00] Gisele has like, you know, more pale [58:02] skin and blonde hair. So she's not as [58:05] much of a like immediate contrast, like [58:07] striking look, so. [58:09] But both are very close in terms of [58:11] harmony percentages. [58:13] >> I would be interested to see, you know, [58:14] how people get the outline of like a [58:17] perfect face and then they match up a [58:18] man's and move it around and see who's [58:20] close to it. What a woman's face would [58:23] look like and how geometrically speaking [58:25] an attractive woman should be from an [58:27] attractive man. Because if, you know, [58:29] you talk about the one-to-one ratio, you [58:31] talk about the strikingness, you talk [58:32] about, you know, having like a sharp [58:34] jawline. [58:35] If you applied the same, but if you [58:37] applied the same things from a man to a [58:38] woman, like you [58:40] >> It's not even close. [58:41] >> you would have like a relatively [58:42] masculine-looking woman. [58:44] >> Yeah, so women are [58:45] according to the golden ratio is [58:47] supposed to have a bit shorter of a [58:48] face, so their mid-face would be closer [58:50] to like, you know, a 1.1 [58:53] rather than males being one and then, [58:57] you know, they would also have a bit [59:00] softer of a jaw, softer of a chin, [59:02] and not as much height to it. So these [59:05] are some of the differences. [59:06] >> Does social media distort what men find [59:09] attractive? [59:10] >> Yeah, just from pornography, I would [59:12] say. [59:13] >> You don't think by any other way? [59:15] >> I mean, maybe editing. [59:17] >> So one thing that I noticed, and I don't [59:19] want to get in any trouble by mentioning [59:21] this. I think that Alissa Liu is [59:24] actually very I think she's She's [59:25] pretty. However, I would argue she [59:27] probably does not fit your scientific [59:30] definition of what like objective beauty [59:33] is to a T. Like, you know, let's just [59:35] say the average consensus is going to [59:38] say she's like a 10 out of 10, but then [59:40] you probably would argue, well, based on [59:42] science she would be, you know, a seven [59:44] or a six and a half or something like [59:45] that. But, there's no doubt that the [59:49] amount of attention that she got after [59:51] her performance at the Olympics, I have [59:53] never seen the amount of like edits. I [59:55] didn't [59:56] even watch her performance, but my For [59:58] You page, like every fifth reel I feel [60:00] like I was seeing her dancing or her at [60:02] some Academy Award or whatever it was. [60:04] And I would And I would check the [60:05] comments because, you know, I have to [60:06] pay attention to these things, okay? For [60:08] social media. And the amount of [60:10] attention that she was getting [60:12] the amount of edits that I would see [60:14] about guys, you know, like like [60:16] fan-girling over her or whatever, like [60:17] admiring her, saying she's like the most [60:19] perfect beautiful woman or whatever. I [60:20] have never seen anything like it. But [60:22] yet, she doesn't quite fit. And so, I'm [60:24] curious how social media can distort [60:26] something like that. Or if there are [60:27] other things outside of beauty that make [60:30] a man attracted to a woman they don't [60:31] even know. [60:32] >> I think that's just always going to be [60:34] a new phenomenon like that you have a a [60:37] girl like, you know, who who just comes [60:40] up and like you said, maybe not the most [60:44] perfect in terms of her facial harmony, [60:46] but you know, maybe she just has like a [60:49] girl next door kind of vibe to her. You [60:51] know, it's not maybe typical that [60:54] athletes are, you know, model-looking [60:57] and extremely attractive. So, when you [60:59] see one that is, it's like [61:01] kind of a shock, I would estimate. But [61:03] regardless, people rating her a 10 out [61:05] of 10, [61:06] they're not saying, oh, wow, she's [61:08] completely perfect according to science. [61:10] It's more so, in my opinion, them [61:13] saying, [61:14] my life would be perfect if I had this [61:16] girl. [61:17] >> How much is it though that men just want [61:19] what other men want? [61:21] >> I wouldn't say it's that important. I [61:22] would say that's more of a a female [61:24] characteristic. [61:25] >> Really? I do think there is a bit of a [61:27] herd mentality. [61:28] >> So, that's called preselection, right? [61:31] >> Correct. [61:31] >> That's more applicable to women. [61:33] >> It seems like men would be just as [61:35] susceptible. That if all these guys are [61:37] like, "Yo, we like her." And everyone's [61:39] competing. [61:41] I think that makes that person more [61:43] attractive. Just like it would be like a [61:44] car or a house or a watch or some other [61:47] thing that everyone collectively wants. [61:50] It just makes it more desirable. [61:51] >> Well, if everyone is [61:53] um you know, want I think a girl's hot [61:56] and she's dated a lot of like top [61:58] celebrities. I think in a lot of cases [62:00] that would probably be um something [62:03] that'd be not so positive. Whereas like [62:06] the preselection of um women being [62:09] intrigued if they see a a hot girl [62:11] walking with a guy like, you know, what [62:13] does this guy have going on for him? Um [62:15] so, that's a lot more of a feminine uh [62:18] thing. [62:18] >> Certainly. [62:19] >> I do want to mention you said that when [62:21] people say that she is a 10 out of 10, [62:23] then they [62:24] they really mean that they think their [62:26] life would be perfect if they were with [62:27] her. [62:27] >> Yeah. [62:28] >> But wouldn't that be more important than [62:31] just [62:32] just looks? And so, then you have to [62:34] break Would you agree with that or no? [62:36] >> It's more so just like because like 2/3 [62:39] of uh of males 18 to 21 haven't had sex [62:42] in 6 months. So, that's just like uh a [62:45] loneliness thing. [62:47] >> But if you were to say what's more [62:48] important, like the a person's [62:50] scientific matching of 10 out of 10 [62:53] beauty or what the general public would [62:56] thinks that would improve their life to [62:57] the point of being perfect if they were [62:59] to be with someone, which one would you [63:01] say is more important? [63:03] >> The objective looks because [63:05] uh a lot of people are just rating these [63:09] girls uh super highly out of [63:11] desperation. Like, you know what I mean? [63:13] If you could actually sit down and um [63:16] analyze the face and not just like, "Oh [63:18] my god, like my life would be perfect. [63:20] I'd be so happy to be with this girl." [63:22] All the answers starts to change a lot. [63:24] >> But, that could also be different if you [63:25] know the person. [63:26] >> Right. [63:27] >> And and if you get to know them and then [63:29] you see them, oh wow, my life would be [63:31] perfect if I am with with this person. [63:33] >> I think that that is all that is [63:34] >> Just a desperation thing cuz most guys [63:36] can't get [ __ ] girlfriends, you know. [63:38] >> I mean, I agree that a lot of guys are [63:39] having trouble getting girlfriends. I'm [63:41] just trying to understand this because I [63:42] do think that now from recalling back to [63:45] like the people that I've liked in my [63:46] life, like I knew that they weren't [63:48] perfectly physically looking or like [63:50] even the most attractive person at the [63:51] school. I just figured, wow, I really [63:53] like their personality. I think that [63:54] that was what a lot of people [63:56] >> No, yeah, yeah. And that's also a thing [63:58] that certainly plays into it. Uh, could [64:00] be like the parasocial relationship, [64:02] whatever. But, uh, that would be a [64:04] ridiculous claim to say that dating is [64:07] only, uh, you know, superficial and, you [64:10] know, shallow towards looks and [64:12] personality means nothing. Of course, a [64:15] girl, uh, is going to be more attractive [64:17] to you and you're going to like her a [64:18] lot more if her personality is what [64:20] you're looking for. If she's gotten [64:22] certain traits, uh, that you admire. [64:24] Maybe she's the same religion as you. [64:26] Whatever. So, maybe people could [64:28] resonate in that sense. So, they're [64:30] applying these different positives, uh, [64:33] within who her looks rating. I think [64:35] could be the problem is it's uh, [64:36] everything is being a bit distorted on [64:39] like what trait is actually influencing [64:42] the person to rate them this high. [64:43] >> So, you're saying that someone could see [64:46] a woman as like a seven, but then just [64:48] be distorted because all these other [64:50] qualities make her a 10. [64:51] >> Right. [64:52] >> What I think is like, how do you make [64:54] yourself as datable as possible? [64:57] But, then I would probably you and I [64:58] would agree on the common thread of [65:00] like, well, what would be a big [65:01] component of being datable? It would [65:03] probably be physical attraction. [65:05] >> What I would say is being as [65:06] well-rounded as possible. So, [65:08] uh, any metric really that you could [65:10] think of, whether it be status, whether [65:12] be your career, your income, [65:15] your looks, [65:17] you know, [65:19] you know, your knowledge even. So, [65:21] really everything. So, just every single [65:24] stat that you can possibly max, do it. [65:26] That's how you become datable. [65:28] >> So, you have a girlfriend now. [65:29] >> Mhm. [65:30] >> How did you pick her as a girlfriend? [65:32] >> Kind of just met her one night and then [65:35] um [65:36] she moved in like few days later. [65:39] >> A few days? How did you meet her? [65:41] >> Um at my [65:43] at the club. Um and I brought her and [65:47] her friend back. [65:48] Uh [65:50] had sex with them. [65:51] >> Both of them? [65:52] >> Yeah. [65:53] >> [laughter] [65:54] >> At the same at the same time? [65:56] >> Yeah, and I liked her better, so. [65:58] >> How did that go with the friend? Did you [66:00] just [66:00] When when did you make the decision? [66:03] >> Like immediately. Um the friend had like [66:06] a weird smell to her. [66:08] So. [66:09] >> Did you tell the friend that she [66:11] smelled? [66:11] >> Yeah. [66:12] >> And what did she say? [66:14] >> Just [66:15] sorry. [66:17] >> What was the What was the smell? I know [66:18] Jack has questions. What What was the [66:20] smell? Was it like a BO smell or was it [66:22] just [66:23] >> Just like a BO like post club, you know, [66:26] like it's understandable. Like I don't [66:27] really have a problem with it. Like sure [66:29] my my [66:30] you know, balls have smelled like 10 [66:32] times worse, you know, so. [66:33] >> But that was enough for you that the one [66:35] is like not but the other one didn't [66:37] smell. [66:37] >> But that was the differentiating factor. [66:39] >> I Well, that just like allowed me to [66:41] like [66:42] >> isolate [66:42] >> further the communications, you know. [66:45] Um to her. But it's just like a It's a [66:47] stupid story, but um yeah, I mean I [66:50] think I've had a girlfriend throughout [66:53] my the entirety of my career. [66:54] >> Wait, so [66:55] we were I just still I'm not quite [66:57] through with this. So, you brought them [66:58] both back. How was their relationship [67:00] now? Is it fractured? [67:02] >> Nah. [67:02] >> They're chilling. [67:03] >> Makes girls better friends. That's why I [67:04] always ask two girls. I'm like, "Are you [67:07] guys friends?" They're like, "Yeah." I'm [67:08] like, "Do you want to be really good [67:09] friends?" [67:10] >> That is [67:11] an insane line. How often does that [67:13] work? [67:14] >> I'd say probably like [67:17] I don't know. Maybe a dozen times. [67:19] >> What's the ratio though? Like how many [67:21] times have you asked that and it doesn't [67:23] work versus [67:25] it works? [67:26] >> 50/50, probably. [67:28] >> So you've asked about 2,000 times. [67:30] >> Yeah. [67:32] >> That is I mean that is like insane [67:34] batting average. [67:35] >> Well, usually like you have to kind of [67:36] know like [67:38] Like you're not just shooting it at [67:39] every girl. Like [67:39] >> It's not the Steph Curry from the moon [67:41] shot. [67:42] >> You can tell like a little bit if a [67:43] girl's going to and her friend are like [67:45] with it. [67:46] >> No, but is this happening on stream? [67:48] Like obviously not like coming back [67:50] here, but like when you're approaching [67:51] and asking these questions, is that on [67:53] stream? [67:54] >> Um [67:55] >> Like how much does it help you to have a [67:56] camera? [67:57] >> It actually hurts me quite a bit cuz [67:59] girls want to like get a clip off and [68:01] like get famous from like rejecting [68:03] Clav. And it's like I know this chick's [68:05] going like, you know, if the camera's [68:07] out here. So I've done like streams [68:10] where [68:11] you know, I had like a hidden cam like [68:13] from across the street and I'm like cold [68:16] approaching or just standing there and [68:17] like girls are a lot more receptive [68:20] when there's no camera. [68:22] >> And so the morning after you just kicked [68:23] out of her and you said, "Hey, sorry, [68:25] not interested." [68:26] >> That's 10 minutes after. [68:28] >> 10 minutes after? [68:29] >> Yeah. [68:31] >> And she didn't feel any, you know, [68:33] regret or like upset about it or she was [68:36] pretty chilling? [68:37] >> Yeah, I mean [68:38] >> Do you still see her around? [68:40] >> Nah. [68:41] Nah, she [68:43] she was has a boyfriend and was [68:45] cheating. [68:46] >> No. [68:47] >> I didn't know. I always I always will [68:49] kick out the girl if I got find out [68:51] they're cheating, you know. [68:53] Like I'm not I'm not always [68:55] down for that, but it usually just [68:57] happens that like I'll find out after. [68:59] >> Wait a second. I saw a clip. [69:01] >> Nah, she got a [69:02] >> What? She's still with him? [69:04] >> Yeah, she got the dude's name tatted [69:07] as like an apology. [69:09] >> No. [69:11] >> That is Miami, and that's why I can't [69:12] live here. It's just like [69:13] >> insane. Now, I remember seeing one clip [69:15] of you, man. You were at the bar and you [69:17] were talking to this girl, and what the [69:19] guy came up to you and he was begging [69:21] you like not to get her number? [69:24] >> Yeah, bro. That was a [69:25] >> Is this real? [69:27] >> Yeah, that's like that's real life. That [69:28] was in New York. Um and it's like if you [69:31] have to like beg your girl like oh stop [69:34] you know go up to other guys be like [69:36] stop talking to my girl. It's like bro, [69:37] it's not your girl. Like she's going. [69:39] >> Oh, that would break my heart. And then [69:41] I like I don't think that would be [69:42] recoverable. I don't think I could ever [69:44] look at her the same. [69:45] >> Dude, I mean [69:47] if if your girl is like [69:49] >> openly doing that. [69:50] >> Yeah, like entertaining other [69:51] conversations even if like [69:53] I were to be like yeah, like all right, [69:54] no problem, man. You know, like why? [69:57] >> That that relationship [69:58] >> cooked even if you said that. It's [69:59] cooked. [70:00] >> Yeah, so it's almost like [70:01] anytime like that happens like [70:04] some dudes will get mad and like crash [70:06] out on like their girl or the dude, but [70:08] it's almost just like well, I would see [70:10] it as if that happened to me, I'd be [70:11] like yo, thank god like I found this out [70:14] sooner or later. [70:14] >> Yeah, it's sooner the better you find [70:16] out about that. [70:16] >> real. You know? [70:18] And so [70:19] >> Wow. [70:19] >> there's no point to get mad about it. [70:20] You should be like all right, like you [70:22] know, that's that's the way the world. [70:24] >> Do you know what happened between them? [70:26] >> Nah. [70:27] >> I still can't get over that the girl [70:28] getting a tattoo. [70:29] >> The girl getting [70:30] >> Not a real tattoo. [70:32] To like as an apology. [70:34] >> Why do you think he didn't leave her? [70:37] >> I [70:37] >> And does he know it was you [70:39] specifically? [70:40] >> mean it's on a [ __ ] live stream. Um [70:42] but the thing is like people would [70:43] rather like put up with this than not [70:46] have a girlfriend and be lonely. So, [70:48] that's kind of like how it goes. And the [70:51] the thing that really like helps you in [70:53] a relationship is if a girl knows like [70:56] that you have access to other women and [70:59] like there's other options out there for [71:00] you. Cuz she's not going to like you [71:03] know, try to walk all over you and be [71:06] entertaining other guys cuz then you're [71:08] just going to break up with her, right? [71:09] And then go on to the next girl. [71:11] >> If it was on live stream though, [71:13] wouldn't she know that this is going to [71:15] get back to her boyfriend? [71:17] >> She probably knew he would [ __ ] like, [71:18] you know, take her take her out. [71:20] >> why she did it. Do you think she could [71:22] cheat on him again and then they could [71:23] stay together? [71:24] >> For sure. Yeah, girl should [71:25] >> What's your advice to this guy? [71:27] >> Oh, [71:27] you got to just like um realize that [71:31] you're better off being single than [71:33] being in a situation uh where your heart [71:36] is constantly broken and a girl is just [71:39] completely like all over you. [71:41] >> Do you think that relationships are only [71:43] ever cat and mouse? And you would always [71:45] advocate hey, the guy has to be the [71:47] mouse running away and they you know, [71:49] you always have the cat chasing it. So [71:51] like you have to [71:52] >> be, yeah. [71:52] >> have your options open and then women [71:54] are probably saying like in their [71:57] whatever they used to communicate like [71:58] men on Reddit, women on whatever it is. [72:00] And they are probably saying yeah, you [72:02] have to be the mouse. You got to you [72:04] know, keep your guy you know, in check. [72:06] Never show too much excitement. [72:08] >> Yeah, man. I I just hate like again into [72:11] the whole like dating dynamics thing [72:13] because it's just like the red pill [72:17] and like a lot of the talking points [72:20] will be said by the same people who are [72:22] just like all like [ __ ] [ __ ] like all [72:24] this [ __ ] you know. Um [72:26] a lot of misogynistic [72:29] talking points and just like [ __ ] [72:31] all over women even though some of it is [72:33] true you know, about just like framing [72:35] the relationship. [72:36] >> Where do you draw the line between [72:37] objectivity and misogyny? [72:40] >> If there's a statistic out there [72:42] something about the amount of of sexual [72:45] partners uh either gender will have on [72:48] average and like in your citing these [72:51] statistics like I don't think that [72:52] really makes you uh misogynistic. [72:55] I think that just [72:56] like makes you going over you know the [73:00] the state of the dating market. But, if [73:02] you're going out and you're only like [73:04] spreading these facts about like [73:06] how women are are acting and you know [73:09] with with no [73:10] calling of attention towards like the [73:12] fact that maybe this generation of man [73:14] isn't the greatest either. A lot of them [73:17] are financially dispositioned. So, it [73:19] kind of makes sense for women to only [73:20] want to go for like the top profiles. [73:23] Like, I think you just kind of need to [73:25] realize what's wrong with both sides. [73:26] >> What do you think of Myron Gaines? [73:28] >> I've been on Myron's show a lot, you [73:30] know, and I've I've watched a lot of his [73:33] streams. I think that, you know, a lot [73:36] of of what he says [73:38] um is true, you know, and and I've been [73:40] on his his late-night show, the after [73:42] hours with a lot of girls, and he'll [73:44] talk about [73:46] uh a lot of things that are really [73:48] relevant to dating today. [73:49] >> Do you think that he's a misogynist? [73:51] >> I think misogyny, like in in my [73:54] definition, would be like a hatred for [73:56] women, right? [73:57] >> Like an incel or something? [73:59] >> Yeah, I don't think Myron hates women. I [74:01] think he just realizes that there's a [74:03] difference between [74:05] um genders and that gender roles are [74:06] important, right? I think he he says [74:09] that our men are the leaders in the [74:11] relationship and uh women are there in [74:14] more of like an emotional supportive [74:16] role. I think that's it's a fair take [74:18] take to give. [74:19] >> So, how long have you and your [74:20] girlfriend been dating? [74:21] >> Since April. [74:23] >> And are you guys monogamous? [74:25] >> You know, I'd be lying if I said I [74:26] haven't gotten with another girl, [74:29] you know. [74:30] >> Are you Are you you're open with [74:32] her with that, right? [74:33] >> Yeah, I don't lie. [74:34] >> So, she knows. [74:35] >> Yeah. [74:36] >> What does she think of that? [74:37] >> I mean, like, at the end of the day, [74:39] there's a difference between like sex [74:41] and love, right? I think uh [74:44] women I kind of understand to a degree [74:46] that um [74:48] men could just like have sex with a [74:51] random girl and it's just a release. [74:52] It's just like physical stimulation and [74:55] there's nothing more to it than that. Um [74:58] so I I think that there's a bit of an [75:00] understanding. [75:00] >> Do you think having the door open and [75:03] always having options and women [75:05] available [75:06] decreases the intensity at which you can [75:08] love your girlfriend? [75:10] >> It's possible but like you know, it's [75:12] not something that I like doing or like [75:14] intend on. It's just sometimes like I go [75:16] to the club, I get drunk and like it [75:19] happens but [75:20] that's not like something I want to be [75:22] doing, you know, I don't want to be [75:23] doing like this this whole degenerate [75:25] like you know, drinking and and going [75:27] out all the time. So that's just me [75:30] being like immature [75:32] but it's not [75:33] something I see lasting. [75:34] >> So that's more like a lack of restraint [75:36] or willpower to [75:38] >> being an idiot like adjusting to fame, [75:40] you know. [75:41] >> And did that cause hiccups in the [75:43] relationship that you were doing that or [75:45] did she kind of assume that that was [75:46] probably going to happen? [75:47] >> Probably assumed it just based on the [75:48] circumstances of [75:50] you know, the introduction. [75:51] >> Would you get a tattoo of her name to [75:53] apologize to her? [75:54] >> I'd never get a tattoo. [75:55] >> How would you feel if she asked if she [75:57] should get a tattoo of your name? [76:00] >> I I'm very against tattoos. [76:02] >> But she has tattoos, I saw. [76:04] >> Yeah, that doesn't mean I like it. [76:06] >> Would you pay to remove her tattoos? [76:08] >> Uh I don't know, probably not but she's [76:11] not something that I prefer. [76:14] >> Do you still approach women? [76:16] >> Yeah. [76:17] >> And what is the goal of these [76:18] approaches? [76:19] >> Like seeing if I still got it. [76:21] >> [laughter] [76:22] >> How many women do [76:23] >> Entertainment. [76:23] >> How many women do you think you've [76:24] approached in your life? [76:26] >> Hot, [76:27] probably 10,000. [76:28] >> 10,000 women? [76:29] >> I've approached like in a single night [76:31] like probably 200 girls before. [76:34] >> And did you notice [76:37] like the 150th was better than the 20th? [76:40] >> Yeah, that's usually how it goes. [76:42] >> There's not like a diminishing return [76:43] because I get tired of talking after [76:45] some time. [76:46] >> It's more like club like approaches like [76:49] Yes, just a couple words [76:52] and either yes or no. But um [76:54] >> What are you yes or no to what? [76:55] >> Whatever. Like, you know, I'm pretty Got [76:58] to go get a drink or something like [76:59] that. Something like that. I'm pretty [77:00] straight straight up with it. [77:02] >> But um straight up with what? [77:04] >> With what I'm saying. I'm like, you [77:05] know, [77:06] >> Oh, like do you want to like get to know [77:07] each other better? [77:08] >> Yes, something like that. But um [77:11] >> Something [laughter] I want to know what [77:12] the opener is. [77:14] >> something like that. Well, what is it? [77:16] >> Jack wants to know the opener. [77:16] >> Like, do you want to do you want to come [77:18] back to to my place? [77:19] >> So, you're Okay, [laughter] so you're [77:20] basically you asked that off rip. [77:22] >> Yeah, usually. [77:23] >> And so you failed 199 times before the [77:25] 200th. Did you end in a success that [77:27] night? [77:28] >> Uh that was in college. I I get a lot of [77:30] like girls who say yes, but then like [77:32] I'm doing like a bunch of [ __ ] and like [77:34] I don't want to end my stream right then [77:35] and there. [77:36] Um if every single time like a girl said [77:39] yes to that like I'll I'll go home and [77:41] like, you know, sleep with you right [77:42] now, [77:44] um my stream might end after 45 minutes. [77:46] I'd get the result that I'm looking for, [77:48] but [77:49] >> But you said you did this in college [77:50] though. It doesn't need to end there. [77:51] It'd be a different website. [77:52] >> You would So, you did this in college [77:53] that without the stream. [77:54] >> Yeah, I just used to spam cold approach. [77:57] >> Okay, so now that you've cold approached [77:59] probably 10,000 women. [78:00] >> Yeah, I've gotten rejected more times [78:02] than [78:03] >> What is the worst rejection you've ever [78:04] experienced? [78:05] >> I mean like you only get really bad [78:07] rejections if like you don't understand [78:10] body language or if like some dudes are [78:13] are pretty weird like they'll get [78:15] rejected by a girl and like it's an [78:17] obvious like IOD indication of [78:20] disinterest and they'll still like [78:22] continue the conversation. [78:24] >> an obvious IOD? [78:26] >> Just like a really unreceptive like [78:29] posture, [78:30] um like turning away from you, [78:32] >> What's a non-obvious IOD? [78:35] >> Shh. Just saying like [78:37] uh do you want to go home with me and [78:40] like the the girl says, "Oh, I'm with my [78:42] friends." It's like if a girl really [78:44] wanted to go home with you, they'd find [78:47] a way to get around that, right? So, [78:49] that's her saying like you know, an [78:51] excuse to not let you down too hard. But [78:54] some dudes will like not understand that [78:56] and they'll be like, "Oh, well, like, [78:57] you know, they could do this." And try [78:58] to like come up with um like a [79:01] logistical solution. It's like, no, the [79:03] girl just doesn't accept it. So, I'm [79:05] very good at like picking up right off [79:07] the bat like if a girl doesn't want to [79:08] talk to me, I know right away and I'll [79:10] just [ __ ] off. And I think it's [79:11] perfectly fine to cold approach like all [79:14] the time as long as you're super [79:16] respectful about like, okay, this this [79:19] person is not interested whatsoever. [79:20] Disengage. [79:22] >> What can someone do when approaching to [79:24] maximize their chances of success and [79:26] what are the most common failures of the [79:29] cold approach? [79:30] >> I would say the most [79:32] uh common failures is like [79:35] not having an IOI first like just going [79:38] up to girls who don't even like like [79:41] know you're you're there and then you [79:43] just [79:43] >> What's IOI? [79:44] >> An indication of interest like maybe [79:46] they give you a smile and are giving you [79:47] eye contact. And then you go up to them, [79:49] the chance of success is going to be [79:50] like a lot better than if you just like [79:52] approach a girl who's like on her phone [79:54] and doesn't even know like uh that [79:56] you're there, you know? Cuz maybe it'll [79:57] work, but [79:59] you know, there's there's no guarantee. [80:01] But regardless, like I'm I'm pretty bad [80:04] like, you know, with my game and like [80:07] cold approaching, like that whole thing. [80:10] I got I just think it's like kind of [80:12] funny and I'm like fine like sort of [80:14] embarrassing myself and like getting [80:16] rejected like I I don't have a problem [80:18] with that. I'm not claiming to be some [80:20] like pick up master cuz I actually think [80:22] I'm like quite [80:24] >> You haven't improved with 10,000 reps? [80:26] >> Oh, no, certainly. But it's more so I've [80:28] improved like I looks-maxing and being [80:31] famous, so it's like kind of to [80:33] attribute it to like, you know, my [80:34] conversational abilities when now I'm [80:37] like huge on social media. [80:39] >> What do you think you could improve on [80:41] in the cold approach? [80:42] >> Um [80:44] >> You still think you need to gesture max [80:45] more? [80:46] >> No, no, gesture max less. I think just [80:48] like finding more like interesting [80:50] things in terms of the dialogue. Like I [80:52] don't really have like a lot of dialogue [80:54] options. So like it [80:57] interesting things to talk about. [80:59] I don't know. Just like that, I guess [81:01] would be good. [81:02] >> Would you date a girl who makes more [81:04] money than you? [81:05] >> Find me one. Um [81:08] probably [81:10] Yeah, I mean, I guess. I don't really [81:11] have a too much of a problem with that, [81:13] but just not like something that's [81:16] likely. [81:17] >> Would you rather date, let's say all [81:20] else considered equal, date a woman that [81:22] makes more than you or date a woman that [81:24] makes 50k a year? [81:26] >> Um it's more so just about the fact that [81:28] like [81:30] you know, you don't want your girl's [81:31] attention to be anywhere else than the [81:33] relationship, in my opinion. [81:35] Uh and like, you know, potentially if [81:38] you have a family in the future, [81:40] like you don't want a girl who's, [81:42] you know, super dedicated to like [81:46] uh a career or like a a startup when, [81:49] you know, you have you have two newborn [81:52] kids, you know. That's how I see it. [81:54] >> Are you better or worse looking than [81:56] your girlfriend? [81:57] >> I wouldn't answer that. [81:59] >> That's your favorite question, [82:01] or it's one of them. You've asked [82:02] several people that question. [82:03] >> Yeah, I always [laughter] ask No, I [82:04] usually ask [82:05] like girls who are friends. [82:07] >> But you're not willing to answer. [82:09] >> I think I'm [82:12] No, in my head. [82:14] >> [laughter] [82:14] >> Then I think your answer is [82:16] apparent. [82:17] >> I think my girlfriend's very pretty. [82:19] And um [82:20] >> However, [82:21] >> that's all I'm going to say. [82:22] >> Comma, but [82:24] >> That's Well, like [82:26] Mhm. [82:27] >> She just hasn't put in the work. [82:29] No, no, no. I I think [82:32] I would [82:33] be perfectly fine and happy if I I had a [82:38] girlfriend who's better looking and so [82:41] that wouldn't be a problem to me. So [82:42] like [82:43] whatever people think, I don't really [82:44] care, you know, but [82:47] um that it's hard to be objective when [82:49] there's like all the other things like, [82:51] you know, you being attracted to like [82:53] someone's personality to [82:54] >> It sounds like you would care what she [82:56] thinks though. If you said that you're [82:57] better looking, no? [82:58] >> No, I love that doesn't influence [83:00] >> So why would you not? [83:02] Like what's your internal dialogue [83:03] telling you? [83:05] >> Even if the answer is not out of ego and [83:07] it's like purely purely objective and [83:10] you're like, okay, like her and you [83:13] know, you mapped out every single point [83:15] >> didn't want to say it. [83:15] >> of every person's face and then you said [83:18] that you think either your girlfriend or [83:21] yourself is more attractive then you [83:22] just look like an [ __ ] quite frankly. [83:24] >> So it's a trap when you ask the question [83:26] to people. [83:27] >> Yeah, of course. [83:28] >> [laughter] [83:28] >> It's a trap, yeah. [83:30] >> Okay, that's fair. [83:31] >> It's just to see if like someone will be [83:33] like honest and brutal or if someone [83:36] will be like [83:36] >> So what's the best way to handle it? [83:38] Graham, are you better Watch this, I'll [83:40] give you an opportunity. Graham, are you [83:41] better or worse looking than your wife? [83:43] Hey, by the way, really quick, if you [83:45] want extra content just like this as [83:47] well as early access and a bonus post [83:49] show posted every single week. Feel free [83:51] to join as a channel member to get [83:53] immediate access to all of that as well [83:55] as early access to everything else that [83:57] we post along with priority responses to [84:00] all of your comments. So if that sounds [84:01] cool, feel free to join. We'd love to [84:03] have you on board. Thanks so much. We'll [84:05] get back to the podcast now. Graham, are [84:07] you better Watch this, I'll give you an [84:09] opportunity. Graham, are you better or [84:11] worse looking than your wife? [84:12] >> Worse. [84:13] >> I think she's better looking. [84:14] However [84:16] However [84:17] >> It sounded like there was a however at [84:18] the [84:19] I think she's better looking. [84:20] >> Yeah, well I think that's the truth. I [84:21] think it's I think it's pretty clear. [84:24] But I think that's a win. Like I take [84:25] that as a [84:25] >> like Tom Cruise. [84:26] >> I think that I think it's a compliment. [84:28] If you can get someone who's better [84:29] looking than you, I think that's that's [84:30] a compliment because then genetically, [84:32] I've just [84:33] basically maxed out your offspring if [84:36] they're better looking. [84:37] So, I think that that I I just did a [84:40] service for the [84:41] the rest of humanity right there. [84:43] >> Hm, thank you. [84:44] >> Yeah, you're wel- you're welcome. [84:45] >> I think my girlfriend's really [84:46] attractive, so there it doesn't matter [84:49] regardless. [84:49] >> What do you like about her? [84:51] >> I don't really get into too much about [84:54] like [84:55] her our relationship, but like just [84:59] having her in my presence while I'm like [85:01] working is nice, you know? [85:03] Um women fill like [85:05] very important role and like their [85:07] energy that they bring around. So, it's [85:10] it's important. [85:11] >> What about the energy specifically? [85:13] >> I just you just feel better, you know, [85:15] like whenever I'm like doing work on my [85:17] computer and my girlfriend's like [85:19] sitting on the couch behind me. I don't [85:21] know how to explain it. [85:22] >> Did you feel lonely without having a [85:23] girlfriend? [85:24] >> It's a different fills a different role [85:26] cuz I've always had like, you know, my [85:27] friends and like people around, but like [85:30] a girlfriend is like a different type of [85:32] connection, you know? So, maybe, yeah. [85:35] >> I saw the one clip [85:37] recently where you told her she was [85:39] spending more than $1,500 a week. I [85:42] think it was like an $1,800 on a camera. [85:44] Does she have a budget on like how much [85:46] to spend a week or is it like a rough [85:49] >> Yeah. [85:50] >> estimate? Like how does that work? [85:51] >> You know, obviously if you say to a girl [85:53] like, "I don't want you to have a job [85:55] and like I want you to focus on like the [85:57] relationship," then it's your obligation [85:59] to like, you know, take care of them and [86:01] support them. Um that's like something [86:03] people don't really understand [86:05] um who are like, you know, poor cuz a [86:09] lot of [86:10] like situations are dual income [86:12] families, whatever. So, you know, I was [86:15] saying like [86:16] I think $6,000 a month is more than [86:19] anyone in this world needs to spend. [86:22] That's more than [86:23] >> don't have rent. [86:24] >> If they don't have any expenses. Not a [86:26] single bill. So, like that's more than [86:28] most people make. [86:29] >> How do you determine market value in [86:32] terms of payment? Like how much this [86:35] person should spend? [86:38] Why is 6,000 a month and not 10? Or not [86:42] four? [86:42] >> Yeah, how did you arrive to that number? [86:45] >> Um [86:46] >> Is it W-2? Does it have like health [86:48] benefits, too? [86:49] >> I don't know. I [86:50] think that's just an amount that's fine [86:53] with me. Like I think it's just an [86:55] amount that that makes sense. There's [86:57] like [86:58] you can get like new [87:00] clothes and stuff with that much money. [87:02] Um [87:03] and that's really about it. [87:04] >> Does it scale with how much money you [87:06] make? [87:07] >> No. No. [87:08] >> It's just that that's what it that's [87:09] just market rate if you make 20 million [87:13] a year or a million a year. [87:15] >> Yeah. I just thought to myself like [87:18] you look at what she costs and you look [87:20] at what she's buying and it's like no [87:21] reason for like more than 1,500 a week [87:25] even if I had unlimited money. [87:27] >> Where does $1,500 a week go? Like what [87:30] do you spend $1,500 a week on? [87:32] >> Well, the reason that I I did it was [87:35] because [87:36] >> [clears throat] [87:36] >> it was just like a lot of waste of like [87:40] you know, sometimes like oh, I I want a [87:43] smoothie or something like that. It goes [87:45] on a food delivery thing and it's like [87:47] it comes out to like $50 with all the [87:50] fees and [ __ ] for a $5 thing. So, it's [87:53] more so like uh you know, you want like [87:57] a smoothie or something. How about you [87:58] get like you know, seven of them and [88:00] keep the other six in the fridge so we [88:02] are a little bit more uh economical here [88:06] instead of like DoorDashing every single [88:07] meal. Uh how about you know, things get [88:10] cooked from time to time. So, it's [88:11] really just more so about like [88:13] getting rid of waste than anything. [88:16] >> I watched the podcast you did with Fresh [88:17] and Fit. You mentioned something about [88:19] wanting waffles in the morning. [88:21] >> Yeah. [88:21] >> Did that change? Do you get waffles in [88:23] the morning? [88:24] >> Yeah, but not from my girlfriend [88:27] usually. I I have [88:29] um like a a maid who who does it. [88:31] >> How much do you work? [88:33] >> Pretty much all I do. [88:35] So, [88:36] from the time I wake up to the time I [88:38] sleep. [88:38] >> How many people do you have working with [88:40] you? Because I got to say that the [88:41] people we met today [88:43] impeccable. I'm talking like you [88:46] >> Yeah, look at all this lighting. We have [88:47] like this box above us providing light [88:48] right here. We got that light over [88:49] there. We even have a light over here [88:51] that shimmers for the like [88:54] the thought that goes in [88:57] the behind the scenes here that you've [88:58] kind of assembled is really impressive. [89:01] >> Yeah, so I think in person I have [89:05] like seven people [89:07] that live with me and work uh for me and [89:10] then [89:11] like [89:12] you know, another dozen or so just [89:15] virtual assistants, [ __ ] like that. [89:16] >> Who does all the hiring and the firing [89:18] and all that sort of stuff? [89:20] >> It's a mix. [89:22] I know some people like my cameraman [89:25] have been with me pretty much since I [89:26] started streaming. [89:28] And you know, now I have someone who [89:31] runs a lot of the business development [89:33] like a CEO. Um [89:35] >> You have a CEO? [89:36] >> Yeah. [89:37] Who does all the uh [89:39] you know, most of the hiring and firing [89:40] now. [89:41] >> What's business decision you've ever [89:42] made? [89:44] >> I do a lot of stupid stuff. You know, [89:47] sometimes I'll like self deposit and [89:50] like gamble money. I I've done that like [89:52] I've done like $60,000 spin before. [89:55] >> How much money have you lost self [89:56] depositing gambling? [89:58] >> Probably like 20K. [90:00] >> That's not terrible. [90:01] >> Yeah. Um [90:03] I mean, I think it is. [90:04] >> Okay. [90:05] >> I just like, you know, 20 20K. [90:08] You know, compared to like how much I [90:10] made, yeah, it's it's not a lot, but [90:12] like I wouldn't [90:14] it's just stupid. You shouldn't have [90:15] done it. [90:16] So, yeah, I try to keep the margins as [90:18] tight as possible. [90:20] So, yeah, no, like when people hear the [90:23] thing about like oh, a $6,000 budget a [90:25] month, [90:27] they'll be like [90:29] oh, Clavicular, like don't you make [90:30] this? Like why are you, you know, being [90:32] so [90:34] so strict about it? And it's like strict [90:35] about it. That's like an insane amount [90:37] of money, $6,000 to spend when you have [90:40] no bills. [90:41] >> What's the most valuable business lesson [90:43] that you've learned [90:45] in your life? [90:46] >> The relationships you make with people [90:49] are extremely extremely important, [90:51] right? Like and not doing business with [90:54] people that you just don't trust and [90:58] you know, you don't get along with. I [91:00] think that's very important that you [91:01] actually get along with your business [91:02] partners. [91:03] >> How did you learn that lesson? [91:05] >> By not getting along with people and [91:07] trying to make things work [91:09] to increase revenue, but [91:11] you know, [91:12] the relationship eventually goes to [91:14] [ __ ] [91:15] >> I want to talk about each one of your [91:16] income sources and businesses. How is it [91:18] broken down right now in terms of [91:20] different income sources? [91:22] >> There's gambling, there's which is a [91:24] pretty big one. [91:26] Live streaming, you get paid on Kick [91:29] for you know, your concurrent viewers [91:31] for how many hours you stream. [91:33] And then you have some of the short form [91:37] monetization like the X monetization, [91:39] you have Snapchat which which is a new [91:40] one that's really big. [91:42] >> Let's let's break down each of these cuz [91:44] I'm I'm curious, what do you make on [91:46] Snapchat? [91:47] >> A few few grand a day. [91:49] >> A few grand, that's so that's a ton. [91:51] Like a hundred grand a month. [91:52] >> Almost. [91:53] >> Are we talking just from the photos? [91:55] >> Yeah. [91:55] >> Holy how many people watch it? [91:57] >> I don't really understand how the [91:59] metrics work. I just have someone that [92:01] that runs it for me [92:03] and takes all the pictures, posts them. [92:05] I don't know if it's like [92:07] it's more so about like watch time and [92:09] like how many people how many stories [92:11] you're clicking through. So maybe like [92:13] 100,000, but it's like are there 100,000 [92:15] people looking at one story or 100,000 [92:17] people looking at 100 [92:19] >> Wow. [92:19] >> They litter ads throughout where people [92:21] are clicking through, you know. [92:23] >> That's insane. Like that is some crazy [92:25] monetization. I'm curious with the [92:26] concurrent viewers with Kick, what does [92:28] Kick pay you? [92:29] >> Somewhere around like 1,000 an hour [92:32] usually. [92:34] >> And how many viewers does that take to [92:35] get paid $1,000 an hour? [92:37] >> If I'm not mistaken, what I've heard is [92:40] like it's [92:42] $10 for like 100 viewers or something [92:45] like that, but I think they kind of [92:47] fluctuated manually. I don't really [92:50] understand how how the KPP metrics work [92:52] cuz sometimes I'll have the same [92:54] concurrent viewers and it'll be less and [92:56] it'll fluctuate. So it it doesn't make [92:58] make sense. [93:00] You know, it's kind of just like [93:02] uh [93:03] whether Kick sort of likes you that [93:05] month, I think. [93:06] >> And the gambling deal. I know that this [93:08] is like for everybody, like the way that [93:11] everyone makes insane amounts of money. [93:13] Like YouTube income used to be one thing [93:15] and then the gambling deals with like [93:17] streamers and stuff and Stake Rubet [93:19] whatever it is, those came out and [93:21] completely changed like how much money [93:23] people are making. The unheard of [93:25] amounts. [93:25] >> gosh, yeah. [93:26] >> I'm curious, what does your gambling [93:27] deal look like? [93:28] >> So I gamble 15K every day [93:33] and [93:35] like it just whatever I keep at the end [93:37] of my gambling session, sometimes it's [93:39] more, sometimes it's less. [93:40] But usually it's [93:42] a lot more [93:44] than that, so I'm positive for the past [93:46] 3 months and I gamble every day. [93:49] >> Interesting. So what's the most you've [93:50] ever made in a session? [93:52] >> I think the most I've ever made in a day [93:53] gambling is like 85K. [93:55] >> Holy cow. [93:57] So your your best income source is [93:58] probably gambling. [94:00] >> Yeah, no. So I would say gambling's [94:01] probably the top, yeah. Yeah, I'd say. [94:05] But I don't really like to tell people [94:07] exactly how much money I make anymore. [94:09] Like I do well for myself streaming. I [94:11] got people have somewhat of an idea. Um [94:15] I'm I'm sure you could do the math kind [94:17] of like what's publicly out there on [94:19] like how much I make, but you know, it's [94:21] unwise to let people know exactly. [94:24] >> I think the difference between I mean I [94:26] would estimate probably 300, 400 grand a [94:28] month. I think the difference between [94:31] 300 or 200 grand a month and 500 grand a [94:33] month is the same thing. To like [94:34] 99.9999% could be a million a month. [94:38] >> I'm [clears throat and cough] saying I [94:38] mean for gambling I'm just from that I [94:41] make a lot more than than that. [94:43] >> Really? [94:44] >> Yeah. [94:45] >> Then you're not it's not 15k a day. [94:47] >> That's what I start with, but I'm I'm [94:49] positive. [94:50] For the month. [94:52] You know, so like I end with more than [94:53] that. So like I'll start gambling with [94:55] 15,000 in the account and then I'll you [94:59] know, usually end up with a lot more cuz [95:01] like some days you could run it up to [95:02] even 85k and some days I lose it all. [95:05] You know what I mean? [95:06] Overall it's positive. [95:07] >> Just thinking that maybe like, you know, [95:09] women for only fans is almost like the [95:11] men for gambling. [95:12] >> Yeah, that's commonly said. Yeah. [95:15] >> I mean it's it's substantial. [95:17] >> Yeah. [95:17] >> I'm I just feel like everyone thinks [95:19] when they see an and don't quote me and [95:22] sue me for this. But when people see [95:25] TrainwrecksTV hit like a $50 million [95:27] win, [95:28] >> Mhm. [95:29] >> there's just no way that's real. Like my [95:31] brain immediately thinks this has to be [95:34] fake. Like there's no way this dude's [95:36] spinning in $50 million. [95:38] >> Wait, you're talking 50 50 50? [95:40] >> Stake has like a billion dollars a day [95:42] in in wagers. So like um that that's [95:45] absolutely real. They're not going to [95:47] like, you know, risk their all of their [95:50] licenses and how much uh money they're [95:52] making from their situation to boost [95:54] someone's account to get like marketing. [95:56] Like people are already gambling on [95:57] stake whether Trainwreckz hits for 50 [95:59] mil or not. Like that's really not a big [96:01] boost for them and they're not going to [96:02] risk um everything that they have going [96:05] on for them to [96:06] >> But when you're a paid gambler and you [96:07] win 3 months in a row, that also makes [96:09] me [96:10] I hesitate [96:11] >> it a little like skewed? [96:13] >> hey instead of it being, you know, 51% [96:15] house, we're going to go 49% house with [96:17] this person. I mean, obviously Don't [96:19] tell me [96:19] >> Yeah, or even if it's a 50/50 [96:21] >> good to have this conversation cuz a lot [96:23] of people I am guessing assume this. [96:25] >> No, it's just like with the slot [96:26] multipliers, like um I don't know. I've [96:29] just always [96:30] gotten kind of lucky with it where like [96:32] I'll be doing like $500 spins and I'll [96:34] I'll lose like three in a row, then I'll [96:36] randomly like up the the buy to like 2K [96:40] and then I'll hit like a a max win [96:42] multiplier. And some of the multipliers [96:43] are like 70,000 [96:45] is like the max win. 70,000 X. So like [96:48] >> What does that do to your perception of [96:50] money when you're like up and down few [96:53] tens of thousands of dollars a day? [96:56] Does that skew like how you view the [96:58] cost of like a coffee or like rent, car? [97:03] >> No, not really. [97:04] >> You're able to [97:05] separate the two, categorize each one [97:07] and say, "Oh, that's a car. This is just [97:09] my gambling money." [97:10] >> Yeah, I don't really like live in in too [97:13] much luxury, you know. I have [97:15] just the the Sprinter and I have a an [97:17] SUV. Like I don't even have any other [97:19] cars cuz why would I? It's like I don't [97:22] even drive. [97:23] >> How do you make sure you're not getting [97:24] taken advantage of? Because virtually [97:26] every single person that I've known that [97:27] started making really good money at a [97:28] young age that didn't have [97:30] a lot of mentors around. I remember last [97:32] time we spoke, you said you don't really [97:33] have any mentors. How do you make sure [97:34] that you aren't being taken advantage [97:36] of? [97:37] >> Well, now I do. And now I have people [97:38] that that kind of look out for me and I [97:40] as of, you know, [97:42] networked with a lot more people [97:44] who are in really successful positions. [97:46] Someone doing like a lot better than [97:48] you, like isn't really going to be out [97:50] to get you. Like, you know. [97:52] I'm friends with people who are are [97:55] worth, you know, [97:57] nine, 10 figures. Like, they don't [97:59] really care to [98:00] like try to [98:03] me over in my situation and give me bad [98:05] advice. [98:06] So now I have a a better grasp on [98:08] things. [98:08] >> So what's some of the best advice you've [98:10] received? Best financial advice? [98:12] >> Probably that it's not about what you [98:15] make, it's about what you save. [98:17] Cuz I've had some months where I was, [98:20] you know, making [98:23] a lot more than I do, but the expenses [98:25] were uh [98:26] you know, quite higher. So now it's like [98:28] I end every single month uh better off [98:31] net profit wise. You know, but the top [98:33] of the line revenue might be a little [98:35] less. Whether it be spending on like [98:37] stream production that doesn't actually [98:39] translate into real income or [98:42] something like that. You know, [98:43] technology that I don't need. [98:45] Just whatever. [98:46] >> What's the ideal amount of money to [98:47] make? Have you noticed any diminishing [98:50] returns above a certain amount? [98:52] >> Uh no, it doesn't really make a [98:54] difference because I outside of like, [98:57] you know, my bills and what stuff costs, [99:01] salaries, like I'm not really spending [99:04] too much money on a day-to-day basis. [99:07] I It's not like we're going to the club [99:09] and blowing like, you know, 10K every [99:11] Friday night. Just doesn't happen. [99:13] >> What's the most you've ever dropped at [99:15] the club? [99:16] >> Eight, $8,000. [99:18] >> That's not bad. I mean, especially if [99:20] you're making hundreds of thousands of [99:21] dollars a month. What's the What's the [99:22] most amount of money you've ever wasted? [99:25] >> Well, sometimes I'll like [99:27] I'll pick Airbnbs or hotels that are [99:30] just like ridiculously overpriced. Like [99:32] when we're staying at our last hotel, I [99:34] think it was [99:38] Which is like not necessary. [99:39] >> was that? [99:40] >> Uh one in Israel. [99:42] >> That is so interesting. Yeah, I mean [99:43] honestly it's it's very surprising. It [99:45] seems like you're pretty financially [99:46] responsible. Not that that I wouldn't [99:48] have expected that but I I don't know [99:49] very few people are especially when they [99:51] start making such good money at a young [99:53] age. They seem very calculated to me. It [99:55] doesn't seem like this happened by [99:57] accident. It seems like you're very kind [100:00] of know what you're doing. Well, I mean [100:02] I you know that's not to say that I [100:04] haven't you know dealt like in a lot of [100:06] ways [100:08] but it's just like I kind of [100:10] would [sighs and gasps] [100:11] learn a lot from like seeing my parents [100:13] situation cuz my dad [100:17] you know I I grew up like very well off [100:20] but my dad would still steal to it [100:23] toiletries from like hotels and stuff [100:25] like that. [100:28] Like you know not actually steal but [100:30] just like take all my little shampoo [100:32] bottles from the rooms even though [100:35] he's making insane amounts of money. So [100:38] just like all these principles just you [100:40] grow up with it and you know you're [100:41] seeing it that's just kind of how you [100:43] are going to be as well. How much do you [100:44] spend every month? Like what's your [100:46] monthly overhead? You have this [100:48] penthouse apartment. You have another [100:49] one apparently that's way nicer you [100:51] said. I would say maybe like [100:54] 400 or something like that. It's [100:56] $400,000 a month. When you count for [100:59] staff probably around there. [101:01] Payroll. Does that include gambling [101:03] losses? No. [101:05] How are you spending $400,000 a month? [101:07] What is this What is this penthouse? [101:09] This one is [101:10] 20 a month. And your other one? 35 plus [101:15] seven people [101:17] plus probably paying for these people's [101:19] food plus security [101:21] plus [101:22] all the other stuff. Where is the most [101:23] Where is the most of it going? Salaries, [101:26] travel is a a big one. Traveling's it [101:29] You travel well you fly first class and [101:31] everything. [101:32] Yeah. [101:33] Well, not not everyone but like [101:36] sometimes uh I flew economy on the way [101:38] over to Paris, but like I'll I'll fly [101:41] economy as much as I can. [101:43] But uh it's more so just about like, you [101:45] know, [101:46] the Airbnbs, and then [101:48] uh every single time you you want to go [101:50] somewhere, Ubers, it it it all adds up, [101:52] you know what I mean? Uh traveling to [101:54] Europe, especially the places like [101:56] Saint-Tropez and uh Mykonos are not the [101:59] most, you know, cheap. That's [102:02] It's very expensive to spend uh the [102:03] summer in Europe. [102:04] >> You got a good tax person who's like [102:07] filing for you now, right? [102:08] >> Yeah, so I this is going to be like the [102:10] first year where I've had to pay like a [102:11] significant amount of taxes, cuz I [102:13] didn't make too much money until about [102:15] December of 2025. [102:18] So, yeah, it's all it's going to hurt. [102:20] >> How does that feel to write the check to [102:22] the IRS? [102:23] >> Haven't had the huge one yet, but um [102:26] it's just It's not great. It's not [102:29] great. [102:29] >> Are you also making money from the [102:31] membership? [102:32] >> Yeah. [102:33] >> Is that substantial, or is that a [102:35] >> No. [102:35] >> So, you kind of just do it on the side? [102:37] >> Yeah. [102:38] >> And do you do any one-on-one consulting? [102:40] >> Sometimes, yeah. [102:41] >> Really? [102:42] >> Yeah, sometimes I'll I'll do it, but I [102:43] mean, it's like [102:44] uh I'm hugely burdened in terms of my [102:47] time, so it's not something I [102:49] can really do more than like [102:52] a few times a week. [102:54] >> What do you charge for a one-on-one [102:55] consultation? [102:56] >> It's usually just something I'm doing [102:58] for free, just like for for people that [103:00] I know. It's not usually a a paid thing. [103:03] I mean, sometimes, but [103:05] um [103:06] yeah, you usually it's just people [103:07] calling me, asking me for for tips that [103:10] I'm friends with, that I've done [103:11] collaborations with, whatever. [103:13] >> We had some questions for you last time [103:14] submitted by an influencer. [103:17] This time, we have a couple more [103:19] questions. And I wanted to see what your [103:22] response is to these. [103:24] >> Okay. [103:24] >> Okay, I see you out modeling. Uh I know [103:27] you've been on performance-enhancing [103:29] drugs, but you seem to have lost all of [103:31] your muscle, you look 100% natural, and [103:34] you're no longer going to the gym. Do [103:36] you have any plans to actually go back [103:38] to the gym and try to looks max by [103:40] putting on more muscle? I know lean is [103:42] law, but what about putting on muscle? [103:45] Will you be back into the gym to [103:48] influence young people to actually [103:50] train? [103:52] >> Um yeah, no, absolutely. I I am I don't [103:56] gym on stream. I started going like, you [103:59] know, a few days ago when I got back, [104:01] but it was just impossible with between [104:03] traveling and [104:04] that whole thing. So, yeah, I I think [104:07] the gym is a huge part of looks maxing. [104:08] When Greg says you look natural, it's [104:10] because realistically I am. Like, I'm on [104:13] TRT, testosterone replacement therapy. [104:15] That's not [104:16] um, you know, a steroid blast [104:18] bodybuilder type cycle. Uh and it [104:21] doesn't do the work for you. Even if you [104:23] are blasting steroids, if you're not [104:24] going to the gym, [104:25] um then you're not going to make gains. [104:27] You could probably make, you know, [104:29] similar gains [104:30] uh with good diet and and training, uh [104:33] you know, as a natural than someone [104:35] who's just taking gear and the darn in [104:38] some cases. [104:39] >> So, I see you got a nose surgery, a [104:41] rhinoplasty. My girlfriend, she got the [104:43] same thing out in Turkey. And so, I was [104:46] wondering, do you really think you [104:48] needed to get the surgery done, YOU DUMB [104:51] [ __ ] [104:54] >> [laughter] [104:55] >> I CAN SEND YOU THAT. JUST SO YOU JUST SO [104:57] YOU HAVE that video. [104:57] >> Send that. Yeah. [104:58] >> For the sauce biking. [104:59] >> Well, um I you know, if I recall, [105:03] doesn't Greg have a hair transplant? [105:05] >> Mhm. [105:05] >> Right? So, does he really need that? I [105:07] mean, what? He's uh a millionaire. [105:09] >> content right now. [105:10] >> He Yeah, he's a millionaire. He's got a [105:12] girlfriend. Like, do you Did you really [105:14] need the hair transplant, bro? You know [105:16] what I mean? So, that's what I'd say to [105:17] him. Did I need the [ __ ] nose job? Uh [105:20] probably not, but I it ascended me. So, [105:23] the same reasons that he got his hair [105:25] hair done is the same reasons I got my [105:27] nose. [105:28] >> Clavicular, I I think I found a worse [105:32] fitness influencer than yourself. He [105:34] goes by the name of Eric English. If you [105:36] haven't heard of this guy, he's 16 years [105:38] old. He's on performance-enhancing [105:40] drugs, and a lot of them, and he's [105:42] literally promoting a peptide company on [105:45] Instagram. Do you think he's worse than [105:48] you? What is your opinion on this? [105:51] >> [laughter] [105:52] >> Um I don't really think that Greg like [105:55] knows anything that I've talked about [105:57] because any of the advice that I've [105:59] given I've always followed it up with, [106:01] you know, under the supervision of a [106:03] doctor. [106:04] Um [106:05] you know, it as you've probably heard [106:07] throughout this interview. So, I don't [106:09] think I've said anything too shocking. [106:12] Um you know, I I've said things that [106:13] I've done that are shocking that are [106:16] uh have a high risk associated with [106:18] them, but I've always said, "Don't [106:20] [ __ ] do this." I I've said, you know, [106:22] maybe I'll have a drink at the club uh [106:24] you know, on the stream, uh but you [106:27] know, I still acknowledge like how evil [106:29] and how toxic uh consumption of alcohol [106:32] is and that you shouldn't do it. It's [106:33] one of the worst things uh for people [106:35] who are in development. So, I just don't [106:37] know if Greg exactly understands uh what [106:40] I'm all about and any of the protocols [106:42] that I've actually recommended for [106:43] people. We got another one from one of [106:46] the most popular guests on our podcast, [106:49] Chris Camello. [106:51] >> Okay. [106:51] >> He says this. [106:52] "I agree with most of his looksmaxing [106:55] takes. Where he misses the mark is in [106:57] diminishing returns. It's not about [106:59] looks versus status versus charisma. [107:01] Once you're in roughly the top 10 to 15% [107:04] in one area, your highest ROI usually [107:06] comes from improving other dimensions, [107:08] not grinding to become the top 1% in the [107:11] same category. That's the nuance. [107:13] Ironically, [107:14] >> He also [107:15] >> I mean, I haven't ever said that. I you [107:17] know, I kind of acknowledged the whole [107:19] thing about diminishing returns. So, I [107:21] just don't I think that's just another [107:23] person that doesn't have a a complete [107:25] understanding of [107:26] uh my takes or my ideology. [107:29] >> He says, "Ironically, he also [107:31] underestimated how much of his current [107:33] success is now driven by influence and [107:35] celebrity rather than incremental gains [107:38] in his attractiveness. [107:40] Additionally, I think his age shapes his [107:42] perspective. [107:43] Looks might get you into the room, but [107:45] every new room has different [107:46] bottlenecks. As you level up, charisma, [107:49] intelligence, reputation, competence, [107:51] authentic relationships, status, wealth, [107:53] and actual accomplishment and actual [107:55] accomplishment often become the limiting [107:58] factors. [107:58] >> Mhm. [107:59] >> Being exceptionally good-looking could [108:00] even become a disadvantage in certain [108:03] environments. I've seen it firsthand at [108:05] the highest levels of business where [108:06] people sometimes have to work harder to [108:08] overcome the assumptions others make [108:10] about them. Looks matter, they just stop [108:12] being the bottlenecks sooner than many [108:14] people realize. If you want to quote me, [108:16] you can, but you never need to Oh, I [108:18] didn't need to say that. Thanks, Chris. [108:20] Another perspective is selection bias. [108:22] If your sample is dating, you'll [108:24] conclude [108:25] you'll conclude that explains almost [108:27] everything, but if your sample is CEOs, [108:29] founders, lead athletes, politicians, [108:31] entertainers, or anyone at the top of [108:32] their field, the equation changes and [108:35] looks won't get you as far as you think. [108:36] He's also willing to trade you [108:38] wealth-maxing techniques for [108:41] looks-maxing techniques. [108:42] >> Sure. [108:43] >> And Chris Camillo is someone I would [108:44] absolutely listen to who has helped us [108:47] tremendously. He's one of the few people [108:49] I just love to [108:51] back and forth with in terms of [108:52] investing. [108:53] >> Yeah, and once again, um he mentioned [108:57] uh something about me not attributing my [108:59] new found success with, you know, my my [109:03] internet fame, but I literally [109:05] acknowledged that when we were talking [109:06] about it. [109:07] >> did mention that. [109:07] >> Exactly. So, it's just someone it's [109:10] another [109:11] situation where like if you actually [109:13] listen to me in like a long-form [109:15] uh setting, I I usually clarify all my [109:18] my points [109:20] extremely well. It's just like things [109:22] will get clipped. That's the nature of [109:24] short-form redistribution. So, [109:27] I would say we probably don't disagree [109:28] on much, me and me and that guy. [109:30] >> What went wrong in the Channel 5 [109:32] interview with Andrew Callaghan? [109:34] >> It wasn't him I was necessarily calling [109:37] out, but I was more so calling out the [109:39] fact that [109:41] no one actually asked me questions about [109:43] looks maxing, [109:45] you know, or or any specific space on [109:47] that. I think he was just asking like [109:50] random political questions. I And I was [109:53] like, you know, dude, why are you not [109:55] asking me about [109:57] what what all my content is about, looks [109:58] maxing. [110:00] >> What's something that we could have done [110:01] better? [110:02] >> I don't think that [110:04] there's anything wrong. I think this [110:05] interview was great. You got you were [110:07] were asking about [110:08] whether how I weigh looks versus status [110:12] and what's more important like, you [110:14] know, in the hypotheticals that you [110:16] gave. So, I think everything was was [110:17] spot-on. [110:18] >> It's about to get worse though cuz we [110:19] have other questions. What caused you to [110:21] pass out at the club? [110:23] >> Oh, oh, just from just drinking too much [110:25] on an empty stomach. [110:26] >> So, oh, wow. So, it was just a [110:28] miscalculation. [110:29] >> Yeah, I mean, just what like the the [110:31] people watching like have never had too [110:33] much to drink like in in college and, [110:35] you know, blacked out a little bit. [110:37] >> Like it happens. [110:37] >> It seems like they were worried about [110:39] you. Like you were unresponsive for a [110:41] second. He's like, "Yo, cut it." [110:44] >> No, no, it was. I mean, I'm just not [110:46] someone who frequently consumes alcohol, [110:47] so my [110:49] you know, my tolerance is not the [110:51] strongest. That was when I kind of like [110:53] started drinking again after not [110:55] consuming alcohol for like 6 months. [110:57] But, yeah, that's like what everyone put [110:59] in the media was that it was an [111:01] And it's like, "Yeah, technically, but [111:03] that makes it seem like it was drugs [111:05] drugs." Yeah, right. That it was like [111:07] drug-oriented when Yeah, technically it [111:09] is an [111:10] but it's alcohol. It's it's a little [111:12] different, you know. [111:13] >> So you got slapped and then pressed [111:15] charges. What was the conclusion of [111:16] that? [111:17] >> Um that's what got me fired. [111:19] Uh [111:20] like not allowed back into that club is [111:22] cuz I pressed charges and my age my [111:25] Yeah, so they knew how old I was. So [111:28] >> I kind of [ __ ] that up, but [111:30] >> You didn't end up actually succeeding in [111:31] pressing charges? [111:32] >> No, I did. I did. [111:33] >> What happened? [111:33] >> I'm not sure, you know, I I just know I [111:36] I pressed like misdemeanor [111:39] I think battery is what it was. [111:41] >> She's in jail for 35 years now. [111:42] >> [gasps] [111:42] >> Yeah. No, I'm sure I'm sure she's uh [111:44] she's perfectly fine. But regardless, [111:46] that clip goes viral. It's so funny like [111:48] every like couple months it'll just pop [111:51] back up on the timeline. [111:52] >> Okay, we need a yes or no answer. Did [111:55] you get frame mogged by the ASU frat [111:57] leader? [111:58] >> That's what people say. That's so funny [112:00] that that still the question still comes [112:02] up. That went like so viral um and that [112:05] was like earlier into my career. So I [112:07] think that helped with a lot of virality [112:08] cuz that was what like February? [112:10] >> February. [112:11] >> So yeah, it's it's pretty good. [112:12] >> did. [112:13] >> I don't know. That's I'll leave that up [112:15] to I'll leave it up to the people to [112:16] decide. [112:17] >> I don't really think about it too much. [112:19] >> But if you were to [112:20] you know, do you think you frame mogged [112:22] him? [112:22] >> I don't know. [112:24] You know, my my whole thing is I've [112:26] never really claimed to be like the best [112:29] looking person. That's not my thing like [112:31] all like I'm the ultimate looks maxed. [112:33] It's like I'm just super knowledgeable [112:35] in the field and I give advice. [112:37] >> Do you see him at all? [112:38] Does anybody talk to him at all? [112:40] >> His number's blocked. [112:41] >> I [112:42] >> [laughter] [112:42] >> I don't know. I don't know. [112:43] There's no way they're talking. [112:44] >> He's banned from all platforms. [112:46] >> No, that'll [112:47] Yeah, that'll [snorts] usually happen [112:48] like, you know, there'll just be like a [112:50] random uh characters on my stream. [112:53] >> When is the last time you were [112:55] embarrassed? [112:56] >> Never. [112:58] >> See, that's the thing I see. It's like [112:59] you seem to be [113:01] very emotionally neutral. [113:03] >> Mhm. [113:04] Yeah, so like all these sit different [113:06] things like me getting rejected like you [113:09] know the clips that make me look silly. [113:11] I get pretty happy about it. I'm like oh [113:13] this is great. It's just like more viral [113:14] more views. [113:15] >> Do you wish that you felt emotions more [113:18] deeply? [113:18] >> No. [113:20] Local war is all [113:21] is the move. So I'm just uh [113:23] you know if I let all these little [113:25] things affect me like you know what [113:26] people say on the internet then um [113:29] you know I I would be just in my head [113:31] all the time when I'm streaming and just [113:33] it's not good. [113:34] >> like the fact you're not reactionary. [113:36] >> Mhm. [113:37] >> I think that's really important. It [113:38] seems that you hold composure extremely [113:41] well regardless of what's going on [113:43] around you. [113:44] >> You have to you know or else you're [113:45] going to be impulsive and do stupid [113:47] >> Is that just you or is that just [113:49] practice? [113:50] >> Uh that's just me. [113:51] >> Okay. So you've always been this way? [113:52] >> Mhm. [113:53] >> Do you think that it prevents you from [113:55] experiencing experiencing highs as much [113:57] as you could? [113:58] >> Yeah. Usually people who are so low [114:01] inhibit they just do impulsive [ __ ] all [114:03] the time. [114:04] They have like a lot of fun doing so but [114:08] um like being pretty emotionally [114:11] flatlined [114:13] allows you to [114:14] be a lot more [114:16] uh you know successful in a lot [114:19] >> [sighs and gasps] [114:19] >> uh more consistent I would say. So I'm [114:22] extremely consistent. [114:23] >> And then running over that guy in the [114:24] car. [114:25] Did you feel bad or did you feel [114:28] vindicated? [114:29] >> No comment. No comment. [114:30] >> Yeah. I don't think you could say how [114:32] you feel because I'm sure it's still [114:33] ongoing and Is there Is there litigation [114:37] or something? [114:37] >> way that's over. I I think it is. I [114:40] think um [114:41] he the guy kind of like [114:44] did up with a couple of statements made [114:45] on the internet so [114:47] >> Oh interesting. [114:48] >> Yeah. [114:49] >> In In fairness. I never think you should [114:51] get in front of a car with a person [114:54] behind the driver seat when the car can [114:56] go. [114:57] >> things. [114:57] >> I have to say that to me seems like [115:00] common sense. [115:01] >> Well let's just say that thankfully [115:03] we're in Florida not the state of [115:04] California or else things would be very [115:06] different. The state of Florida um and a [115:08] lot of its uh [115:10] you know, litigators, whatever, [115:12] legislators, excuse me, have said, you [115:15] know, it about these protests, if you [115:17] get in front of someone's car and are [115:19] are blocking them, then run them over. [115:22] >> I see some of these that really upset me [115:24] when there's a car trying to pass [115:25] through, people surround the car. You [115:29] could see the person inside freaking out [115:32] and they accelerate and the people in [115:34] front get off and and then sometimes [115:36] then they try to chase down the car and [115:38] rip out the person. [115:39] >> Once again, [115:40] >> Yeah. [115:40] >> I'm not an impulsive guy. [115:43] Uh everything I do is calculated. Now, [115:46] so [115:47] >> So, this is a [115:50] status tier list. [115:51] And so, this [115:53] it's based off of [115:56] you know, how much they can status mog, [115:58] what they're able to achieve, looks, [116:00] kind of the whole package. [116:02] You know, maybe attraction to women or [116:04] from women. [116:05] >> That's a good one. [116:05] >> Okay. Uh so, SMV, I'm going to put first [116:08] S tier, got to be Ronaldo, [116:11] um easily. [116:13] Um [116:13] >> And mind you, the closer you are to the [116:16] the letter that's that is also within [116:18] the S tier, that's how it's ranked. [116:20] >> Uh okay. [116:21] Um hm Elon Musk, I'm going to put him [116:26] I'm actually going to put him at [116:28] A tier. Um [116:30] I would say [116:31] I would say Tate [116:34] um [116:35] I'm going to put Tristan Tate uh [116:38] at A tier. I'll also put Andrew Tate [116:41] at A tier. [116:42] >> Between them, which one's closer to the [116:44] letter? [116:45] >> Um I put Tristan. [116:47] Um let's see. We have Togi. [116:51] Uh we have Timothy Chalamet. [116:54] That's probably another Yeah, that's [116:55] probably another tier. [116:57] Um, okay, now moving on to [117:01] B tier, I'm going to go with [117:04] uh, [117:05] David Laid. [117:07] I'm going to go with, um, oh wait, I [117:09] forgot I didn't just saw Messi on this [117:11] list. Yeah, you could put you could put [117:13] him back in the tier, yeah. Yeah. I'll [117:14] put Messi right after Elon Musk here. [117:18] So, he's going to go in front of the the [117:20] Tates. [117:21] Um, and right behind Elon Musk. All [117:24] right, then I'm going to put [117:26] uh, oh, Henry Cavill, also another S [117:28] tier right behind, [117:30] uh, Ronaldo. [117:31] Let's see, Mr. Beast, we'll put him B [117:34] tier, uh, [117:37] that's hard. [117:38] Yeah, we'll put him B tier. [117:40] We'll do [117:43] uh, xQc, I think is also going to be [117:47] pretty high up there. [117:49] Er, [117:51] I don't know, we'll go [117:53] C tier, we'll put Hasan. [117:55] We'll put [117:57] s- Speed. [117:59] Kai. [118:01] >> [snorts] [118:01] >> Uh, [118:02] xQc. Oh, dude, when you're comparing to [118:05] like Messi, I mean, Elon Musk [118:07] >> Yeah, I agree with you. I took this I [118:10] filled this out as well. I'll put my [118:12] results what I put this as after you're [118:14] done. [118:15] >> I can't wait to see this. [118:16] >> Yeah. [118:18] >> Um, hm. [118:20] Let's see, I'll put Neion in [118:24] D tier. [118:25] Um, Jesse James West, we'll put in [118:30] hm, [118:32] that's the I would say D tier. I think [118:35] just like [118:36] with how famous some of these people [118:38] are, like, you know, we're talking about [118:41] Messi, you know, versus like [118:43] >> It doesn't need to be linear. It could [118:45] be [118:45] >> Yeah, [118:46] um, [118:47] okay. [118:49] I'm going to put myself in [118:52] probably D tier. [118:54] Um [118:56] let's see. [118:58] >> [sighs and gasps] [118:58] >> All right. [119:01] We'll put [119:07] Bang. [119:10] Okay, I I don't know who these two [119:14] Oh, wait, let me put Nick and then [119:17] Hmm, I think [119:19] we'll go I think Nick since just with [119:22] like how controversial his politics are [119:25] might be a little lower. [119:28] Like C. And then who are these last two [119:30] people? [119:32] >> [laughter] [119:34] >> Me and Caleb Hammer. [119:36] >> You got Graham on the right and Caleb [119:38] [laughter] Hammer on the left. [119:40] >> Okay. [119:41] Um [119:45] That's probably how I'd [119:45] >> I hope I score Yes, I scored higher than [119:47] Caleb Hammer. I scored higher than [119:49] Graham. That's crazy. [119:50] >> Yeah. [119:50] >> Yeah. Okay, so I put Wow, I can't [119:53] believe you put Neon higher than you. [119:55] >> Yeah. [119:57] >> Why is Neon higher than you? [119:58] >> Neon was the only person [120:00] >> Uh maybe [120:01] >> Yeah. Neon was the only He was the only [120:03] person I put lower than me. [120:05] >> Yeah, I might be [120:05] >> I was second to last in my list. [120:07] >> Why is Togi so much higher than Jack and [120:09] I? [120:10] >> I think he is, dude. I mean, like just [120:12] cuz he's [120:12] >> He's jacked? [120:13] >> He's jacked, he's he makes a lot of [120:15] money, he's funny, he's charismatic, [120:17] he's Jester Max. [120:18] >> Yeah. [120:19] >> Physique Max. [120:21] >> More than Jesse James West, though? [120:23] >> I think so. [120:24] >> I think so. Yeah. [120:25] >> Wow. [120:26] >> That's Yeah, that's my list. [120:28] >> Caleb, Jack, we got We got some work to [120:30] do. [120:30] >> not last. I wasn't the last in my list. [120:32] I was second to last. [120:33] >> Yeah. [120:34] So, you know, like I'm pretty I'm pretty [120:36] objective with it. Like, you know, I [120:39] realize like [120:41] my faults and I have no problem [120:43] acknowledging it. You know, I've never [120:44] claimed to to like the best looking, [120:46] highest SMV. I'm is a guy who could you [120:49] know, talk for hours about every single [120:52] drug interaction [120:53] in my body and all areas of looks [120:56] maxing. You know, that's what I'm about. [120:58] >> You know what? The other thing I will [120:59] give you a lot of credit for and Jack [121:00] and I were talking about this. When he [121:02] texted you you texted Jack back [121:04] immediately. [121:05] >> believe it. [121:06] >> And you knew your schedule because it [121:09] was so planned out that when Jack [121:11] that when Jack asked when are you free, [121:13] you said this day this time. [121:15] >> Yeah. Um I finished another podcast [121:17] right before [121:19] this. I've just had a [121:21] ridiculous amount of media the the past [121:24] like week or so. [121:25] Probably done like [121:27] over 10 [121:29] different interviews. [121:30] >> Yeah, you're [121:31] very calculated. I think people can tell [121:33] obviously if they watch enough of your [121:35] raw content as opposed to just the clips [121:37] that everything you do has a plan. [121:38] >> Mhm. [121:39] >> And it's calculated. And that I think [121:41] the only thing that I haven't quite [121:42] understood yet and maybe it's an age [121:44] thing, maybe it isn't is that you [121:46] juxtapose this like very calculated [121:48] intelligent you know, you could go on [121:50] for hours about pharmacology [121:52] and you mix that up with a lot of very [121:55] risky irrational decisions that some [121:58] people see you making on stream that [122:00] could just be for entertainment [122:01] purposes. It doesn't seem like you [122:03] actually experienced negative [122:06] consequences of [122:07] you know, extending yourself too much. [122:10] >> Yeah. [122:10] >> Right? So it's it seems like even the [122:11] chaos is a little bit controlled. [122:14] Controlled. [122:15] >> no, most certainly. [122:17] >> Which is good. [122:17] >> Yeah. Yeah. [122:18] >> Thank you so much for giving us your [122:19] time today. Consult a medical [122:21] professional. I do not get behind any of [122:24] this like, you know, like [122:25] you know, [122:26] talk to doctors. [122:27] >> clueless. I'm clueless. I I just like [122:30] it. I already said this. [122:31] >> Yeah, of course. He said this. We're not [122:32] saying this as opposition to him, but we [122:35] all agree. Talk to doctors. Do your [122:37] best. [122:37] >> Oh, yeah. [122:38] >> Do your Do your best. [122:39] >> best. Thank you for Thank you so much [122:40] for watching. Until next time. Oh, and [122:42] also if you want to see the full length [122:44] podcast without the cuts, feel free to [122:46] join the memberships. You also get early [122:48] access to the episodes as well. So, [122:50] really hope you enjoy. Thank you so much [122:52] until next time.