“Looksmaxxing” influencer Braden Peters, 20, pleaded not guilty to charges of rape, drugging someone for sexual intercourse, and procuring alcohol for a minor in Massachusetts court Thursday. The charges stem from an alleged incident in May 2025 at his family’s home in Chatham, Cape Cod, involving Aleksandra Vasilevna Mendoza, who was 17 at the time. Mendoza alleges Peters gave her vodka during a Twitch livestream and then sexually assaulted her while she was asleep; his mother and grandmother were reportedly present in the house. Peters, whose online name is Clavicular, has denied wrongdoing. A judge set bail at $10,000, which Peters paid in cash.
Mendoza initially filed a civil suit in Florida alleging sexual battery and that Peters injected her with a non-FDA-approved substance during a livestream. She recently refiled the civil suit, dropping the sexual assault allegations to avoid interfering with the Massachusetts criminal case. A separate misdemeanor battery charge in Florida was dropped, and Peters received probation after pleading no contest to firing a gun in public.
According to police reports, Mendoza stated Peters paid her to appear in his “looksmaxxing” videos. Peters’ defense team argued he is not a danger to the community or a flight risk, citing his lack of prior felony convictions. He surrendered his passport as a condition of bail and is prohibited from contacting Mendoza or posting about the case online. Left-leaning outlets emphasize Mendoza’s allegations and the details of the alleged assault, while independent coverage focuses on the legal proceedings and Peters’s demeanor in court. Not in dispute is that Peters is facing criminal charges and a civil suit related to the same alleged incident.
Our reading is that this case presents a complex situation involving serious allegations against a public figure operating in a relatively new online space. The differing coverage, with left-leaning outlets prioritizing the alleged victim’s account and independent sources focusing on the legal process, highlights the challenges of reporting on cases with strong emotional and ideological components. The fact that the civil suit was altered to avoid hindering the criminal case suggests a strategic approach by the plaintiff’s legal team.
Read the original coverage
💬 Comments
📜 Comment Policy