HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hermit@cats.UCSC.EDU (William R. Ward)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: The Naked Guy featured in 11/5 SJ Merc
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:44:42
Organization: Computing and Telecommunications Services, UCSC
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu

If you have a chance, check out the Living section (section G) of the
November 5th San Jose Mercury News.  There's a feature article on
Berkeley's own "Naked Guy," Andrew Martinez.

Included are several photos, one from the rear and one from the side
of him walking down the street (in the latter, he is wearing a bandana
over his genitalia, and his scrotum would be visible if not for
apparent airbrushing), and a picture of him nude in class.
--
William R Ward                         __o   Bay View Software
VoiceMail: +1 (408) 479-4072         _ \<,_  Internet:  hermit@cats.ucsc.edu
SnailMail: 1803 Mission St. #339    (_)/ (_) BITNet:    hermit@cats.bitnet
           Santa Cruz CA 95060 USA
Newsgroups: rec.nude,alt.folklore.urban
From: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com
Subject: Re: Going Topless/Nude in a Convertable
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:35:14 GMT

Well, this is relevant to the topic but not the post I'm following up to.

My sister once told me that her boyfriend at the time got stopped by the
Virginia State Police for driving topless in his convertible.  I'll have to
ask her about it...

-Mike
From: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re:  Christian nudes
Date: 8 Nov 1992 09:57:58 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1der1lINNmgv@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> gchatham@cats.ucsc.edu (Gregory Chatham) writes:
>What I DID mean:  lust = sin
>    If nudity, or type of clothing (someone mentioned bathing suits) tends
>    to make some people lust (I am hoping we can take this as a given),
>    then I have to wonder about some "nude experiences" which involve many
>    "gawkers", and the like.  I AM NOT saying that the people going nude are
>    sinning because they are going nude.  I AM saying that other people may
>    sin because of it.  THIS is what I believe is wrong.  (see Rom 14:21 --
>    "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor do anything that
>    causes your brother to stumble...")

The problem with such speculative arguments is they can easily be reversed:
IMHO, it is the clothing compulsive behaviour of our society that causes
people to lust after another person just because that person is nude.
Therefore Christians should oppose the clothing compulsiveness that
results in people sinning in this way.  By NOT allowing your "brother"
to view nudity as natural, you are *causing* him to "stumble".  <"you" is
generic and doesn't necessarily refer to GC.>

>What I STILL DON'T MEAN:
>    That one should lock themselves in a closet, so as to keep everyone's
>    heart pure.  But I am saying that the concerns of those who havn't yet
>    reached your stage of "elightenment" concerning
>    the proper view of the body, need to be addressed.
>
>The final word:
>    IMO: It would be better if nudists didn't reveal themselves
>    quite so fully to those who may sin because of it.

I'm a little confused....I'm not supposed to "lock myself in a closet", but
I shouldn't "reveal myself quite so fully".....????

Cheers.  Bill.
-- 
Bill Arnett                            Internet: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: lola@lucid.com (Lola McCrary)
Subject: Re:  Christian nudes
Organization: Lucid, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 05:40:26 GMT

In article <1der1lINNmgv@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> gchatham@cats.ucsc.edu (Gregory Chatham) writes:

   What I DID mean:  lust = sin
       If nudity, or type of clothing (someone mentioned bathing suits) tends
       to make some people lust (I am hoping we can take this as a given),
       then I have to wonder about some "nude experiences" which involve many
       "gawkers", and the like.  I AM NOT saying that the people going nude are
       sinning because they are going nude.  I AM saying that other people may
       sin because of it.  THIS is what I believe is wrong.  (see Rom 14:21 --
       "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor do anything that
       causes your brother to stumble...")

   What I STILL DON'T MEAN:
       That one should lock themselves in a closet, so as to keep everyone's
       heart pure.  But I am saying that the concerns of those who havn't yet
       reached your stage of "elightenment" concerning
       the proper view of the body, need to be addressed.

   The final word:
       IMO: It would be better if nudists didn't reveal themselves
       quite so fully to those who may sin because of it.

Goody, good.  Bibical mandated codependency.  Almost as bad as government
mandated codependency.

No smiley.

You watch out for your soul, and I'll watch out for mine.

Lola
From: gchatham@cats.ucsc.edu (Gregory Chatham)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: RE:  Christian nudes
Date: 6 Nov 1992 22:19:33 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: as215-ws-15.ucsc.edu


As someone asked, I'm responding to a remark in my previous article.  For
those of you who didn't read it, I made a reference to Jesus' sermon on
the mount where he writes that anyone who looks upon a woman to lust after
her already commits aldultery in his heart.  I didn't give any interpreation
to this verse, I basically said..."consider this."



What I DID NOT mean:  nudity = lust = sin.
    As I had also quoted Genesis were many have remarked that nudity is
    a natural state.  I agree with them.

What I DID mean:  lust = sin
    If nudity, or type of clothing (someone mentioned bathing suits) tends
    to make some people lust (I am hoping we can take this as a given),
    then I have to wonder about some "nude experiences" which involve many
    "gawkers", and the like.  I AM NOT saying that the people going nude are
    sinning because they are going nude.  I AM saying that other people may
    sin because of it.  THIS is what I believe is wrong.  (see Rom 14:21 --
    "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor do anything that
    causes your brother to stumble...")

What I STILL DON'T MEAN:
    That one should lock themselves in a closet, so as to keep everyone's
    heart pure.  But I am saying that the concerns of those who havn't yet
    reached your stage of "elightenment" concerning
    the proper view of the body, need to be addressed.

The final word:
    IMO: It would be better if nudists didn't reveal themselves
    quite so fully to those who may sin because of it.
From: noid@nick.csh.rit.edu (i live in the dark)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Going Topless/Nude in a Convertable
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:00:07 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Computer Science House @ RIT

In article <1992Nov11.125010.19344@cbnews.cb.att.com> ran@cbnews.cb.att.com (Robert A. Neinast) writes:
>
>Sorry (well, actually, I'm not sorry at all; I like driving barefoot),
>this is not true.  According to the AAA Digest of Driving Laws,
>barefoot driving is "permitted" in every state, except for Ohio,
>where it is "not recommended", whatever that means.

this must be one of two things...
	they either repealed it recently from NY and others states or it
	is just a minor thing that you can't get pulled over for but can get a
	ticket for if you get pulled over for something else
	(i know the "you can't get pulled over for it" sounds silly since you
	can't see your feet,  but they might just do it to make it illegal
	and not bog down the police.  this was how the seatbelt law was here
	and might still be.  law is to weird for my comprehention)
the reason i say this is because i know of someone who got a citation for it.
	was pulled over on his way back from the beach.  

	
>(I can just see the legislature sitting around with nothing to do,
>"Gee, I don't feel like passing a law today, let's pass a
>`not recommended'". :-) )
>
probably just something in the driving mannual.    those silly legislators....

	what will they do next....?


>Bob

-simply noid
From: silsbee@f223.n105.z1.fidonet.org (silsbee)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: handicap access at resorts?
Date: 12 Nov 92 03:08:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: therose.721640598.AA00000

In article <BxHMqx.Kt1@access.digex.com> bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler)
writes:


 JB> I am still curious how much of this experience is visual.
 JB> Anyone else?

For me a vast majority of the experience is visual. Most of my
outside-the-home
nude activities are at a local river, and I would find that not being able to
see the river and trees and sand and birds and people would greatly lessen
the
experience. Is this what you wanted to know?


Wayne

silsbee@f223.n105.z1.fidonet.org
From: gchatham@cats.ucsc.edu (Gregory Chatham)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Chrisitan nudes
Date: 6 Nov 1992 02:37:32 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: as215-ws-2.ucsc.edu




I'm just visiting here in rec.nude, but I'm curious to see the thread
on Christian nudes.  I can appreciate the feeling of freedom associated
with going nude.  As someone pointed out on this thread, God made us nude,
obviously intending for us to live that way.  Unfortunately, we tend
to hide things from each other and from God.  Hence the need for both 
clothes and also emotional barriers.  To those who keep quoting Genesis,
please remember that this story addresses a man and his wife, not the 
general public.

Addressing those who call themselves Christian,
   Consider the following from Jesus' famous Sermon on Mount

   "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after
   her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

please reply directly to gchatham@cats.ucsc.edu.
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: alumni106@camins.camosun.bc.ca (Max Sterling)
Subject: Re: Chrisitan nudes
Organization: Camosun College
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 09:46:50 GMT

In article <1drankINNfn8@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an725@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Paul L. Fortman, Jr.) writes:
> 

> Technically or perhaps legally speaking, Adam and Eve could not have 
> been married since you need a priest/rabbi/minister/justice-of-the-
> peace/etc. to be married.  

Ummm... do you think GOD would have been good enough? it sounds to me 
like you're saying that laws created by humans should take precedence 
over God himself.

> This is assuming that two people, a male called Adam and a female 
> called Eve actually existed, rather than being just a mythical 
> creation story written long after the book about the history of a
> people/culture it is attached to was written.  BTW, why are there
> two creation stories in Genesis?

IMHO, the Bible is at best meant to be heavily symbolic, if not a work 
of fiction. I remember reading somewhere that archaeologists discovered 
a city somewhere that was older than any other up to that point. After 
translating whatever writing they were able to find, they discovered 
that the city was called "Ad", and the people who inhabited it were 
called "Ad am". It doesn't take any stretch to see how this could have 
degenerated into "Adam". Therefore, instead of being the first person, 
"Adam" could very well have been the first civilization. After all, Adam 
was supposed to have lived 930 years, which is a LONG time for a human, 
but not all that long for a whole civilization. Mata ne.

                                                        -=]> Max <[=-

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Kup- "This reminds me of the time when my   +-> Kup- "You ever SEEN a Regulan|
|      my platoon was stranded on Regulan IV;|         Metal Monger, lad?"    |
|      there we were, only SEVEN HUNDRED of  |   Hot Rod- "Uh, no,..."        |
|      US, against THREE WHOLE REGULAN METAL |   Kup- "TRUST me! We were      |
|      Mongers!"                             |         outnumbered!           |
|Hot Rod- "Seven HUNDRED of YOU? Against     +--------------------------------+
|          THREE of THEM? Aw, come on, Kup!"-+ alumni106@camins.camosun.bc.ca |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: hermit@cats.UCSC.EDU (William R. Ward)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: The Naked Guy featured in 11/5 SJ Merc
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:21:29
Organization: Computing and Telecommunications Services, UCSC
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: bote@access.digex.com's message of Tue, 10 Nov 1992 06:55:09 GMT

In article <BxHn7z.KwD@access.digex.com>, bote@access.digex.com (John Boteler) writes:
) hermit@cats.UCSC.EDU (William R. Ward) writes:
)>Berkeley's own "Naked Guy," Andrew Martinez.
)>
)>apparent airbrushing), and a picture of him nude in class.
)
) So he really does go to class nude? That's pretty cool.
) I wish I had done that.

Actually he has to wear a bandana over his front, attached to a belt
around his waist.  In the photo you couldn't see either his genitals
or the bandana.

Apparently he used to go nude, but got enough complaints that the
administration required him to wear the bandana.  At least part of the
complaints came via the sexual harassment dept., unfortunately.  He is
a large, muscular man, and I suppose that intimidated some of the
women on campus.
--
William R Ward                         __o   Bay View Software
VoiceMail: +1 (408) 479-4072         _ \<,_  Internet:  hermit@cats.ucsc.edu
SnailMail: 1803 Mission St. #339    (_)/ (_) BITNet:    hermit@cats.bitnet
           Santa Cruz CA 95060 USA
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: valentin@netcom.com (Valentin Pepelea)
Subject: Re: Berkeley's Naked Guy
Organization: Netcom Communications, Santa Clara, CA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 07:52:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.113741.1@skcla.monsanto.com>
petersonk@skcla.monsanto.com writes:
>
>I just talked with a friend in California... It seems that "The Naked Guy" at
>Berkeley just got suspended from campus for two weeks.  There was some sort of
>ruling passed.  Does anyone have more information???

There is no law in California barring nudity. Lewd behavior, yes, but not
nudity. Neither the city of San Francisco nor Berkeley have added any
bylaws prohibiting nudity.

But Chairman Mao, oops, Chairman Tien of the People's Republic of Bezerkley
decided to ban nudity on his campus. After his adventures with Rosebud Mary
you'd think he learned not to take reactionary measures against the will of
the people.

Andrew Martinez, the liberator of the clothed oppressed proletariat would have
none of that, and showed up fully liberated like usual. This time he was
suspended for two weeks.

He appealed his suspension to the Vice-Chancellor. It is doubtful that
Chairman Mao's, oops, Charman Tien's whim is legal. Since Berkeley is a public
university, is the Chairman allowed ban attire that is considered perfectly
normal and legal on the streets of the city and state that fund his
institution?

The Vice-Chancellor had until today, Tue Nov 10, to hear Martinez's appeal.
He did not. Therefore the suspension is automatically lifted. It remains to
be seen, though, whether Martines will be suspended once again if he shows
up in his usual attire once again.

This is a question of interest not only to Martinez, but to all the students
that have enjoyed life in the buff on campus. There are several spots on
campus where students, on a hot day, can be seen studying the way that God
and Marx intended. If Chairman Mao's, oops, Chairman Tien's personal immorality
prevails, then more than one student will be inconvieneced.

Valentin





-- 
"An operating system without virtual memory      Name:      Valentin Pepelea
 is an operating system without virtue."         Phone:     (408) 249-6610
                                                 Usenet:    netcom!valentin
                     - Ancient Inca Proverb      Internet:  valentin@netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: jvbrug87@uther.calvin.edu (John Van Bruggen)
Subject: Re: Berkeley's Naked Guy
Organization: Calvin College
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 05:02:26 GMT

I just finished watching Rush Limbaugh(sp?) and was surprised that he
even got press there. He did it in such a context that would
make it seem like he was anti-nude, yet the wording was something like:

	I can't believe that our verterans have died to preserve
	something like *this*. This is what it is all about: They
	want to be able to do whatever they want *without* limits
	(gets even more agitated) Yes that is what this country is 
	about, but ***without**** limits!?!

This would make it seem to me more like he (as much as he hated to)
supported their actions. I guess someone should write him (he does
have a compuserve e-mail address, could anyone post it here?)

My basic reaction to this new reporting is this:

Oh no! We might be able to do as much as we can get away with because
that is the American way! Of course usually it tends to be reported
more in corrupt incedences(trying to make too much cash) but
nonetheless most Americans, given the chance like to push thier luck.
This is just another case of it in a slightly different situation.

any comments/concerns are welcome, I think many of these threads are
getting quite well worn by now. (Although I think other things along
the lines of Topless in a convertable would be nice, Topless in a Jeep?)


--


						-John Van Bruggen
From: Alex Raftis
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Driving without shoes
Date: 13 Nov 92 00:59:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: zeus.1992Nov13.005927.163165
Reply-To: alex@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu
Organization: Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo

Dan Wright writes
>Terry "who knows the REAL middle name of Captain Kirk" Wood wrote:
>
>: ... (thomas.e.lester) writes:
>: >     I have been told that in Pennsylvania it is illegal to drive without
>: >     shoes!
>:
>: This is an urban legend.  It is not required to wear shoes.  I've met  
members
>: of the State Police who laugh really hard when they stop someone and find  
them
>: struggling to get their shoes on.
>

This came up in a Driver's training class I was obliged to take about a year
and a half ago. There is no California law against driving without shoes.
For that matter, there is not Federal law. However, some cities and counties
do require this. For what I was concerned about, Santa Barbara requires that
drivers wear shoes, but this was the only are in California that my instructor
knew about for sure.

Alex
--
______________________________________________________
    Internet: alex@data.acs.calpoly.edu (NeXT mail)
              alex@cosmos.acs.calpoly.edu
From: CA.FER@forsythe.stanford.edu (Jennifer Gates)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Newest Nudist ;-) ;-)
Date: 12 Nov 1992 16:26:14 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

millman@indigo.bear.com (Phillip Millman) writes:
>Richard Beigel (beigel-richard@cs.yale.edu) wrote:
>:
>:
>: Phillip Millman writes:
>: >On Oct 24, 1992 at 2:56 am, Bluma Sarah Millman came into this world
>: >naked as me at Black's Beach.
>:
>: It's just this sort of activity that gives nudism a bad name.  I think
>: that giving birth on the beach is very irresponsible.  More offensive
>: than conceiving on the beach.  How dare you!
>:
>: :-)
>Geez, I blow the grammar and everybody is on my case!  To be honest,
>My wife DID go to Black's when she was 7 months pregnant.  I wonder
>if that affect Bluma?
>
>BTW have you ever tried to be coherent after spending many nights without
>sleep?? ;-)
>
>
Too bad she was not born on the beach... Some of my best clothing
optional experiences have been assisting at home births... That is
an opportunity to truely get down to the basics..

Jennifer
From: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: handicap access at resorts?
Date: 8 Nov 1992 10:15:36 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: rec
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <BRIAN.92Nov5185927@ganglion.Canada.Sun.COM> brian@ganglion.Canada.Sun.COM (Brian Onn - OpCom Staff) writes:
>I'd like to know what kind of barriers I might come across if I were
>to vacation at one of the many resorts discussed here.  Has anyone
>ever thought about this?  Have you seen other wheelchair bound naturists
>in your travels?

I don't think I have.  And I don't generally focus on things that would
make wheel chair access difficult.

Most of the beaches would be out of the question since they are generally
hard to get to....and, of course, there's that sand problem.

Lake Bronson club in Washinton state would probably cause a lot of
problems for a wheelchair.  (Rough roads.  A gravel parking lot in front
of the lodge (club house).  Stairs to get into the lodge.  Poor toilet
facilities.)  This is probably typical of most "clubs".  The "resorts"
should be a bit better.

I encourage you to contact any resort you are interested in.

Cypress Cove in Florida might be okay.  I can't remember for sure.

Bill.
-- 
Bill Arnett                            Internet: arnett@unixg.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.nude
From: v024971@plato.lsvl8.stortek.com (Robert J. Waddell)
Subject: Re: Going Topless/Nude in a Convertable
Organization: StorageTek
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:23:01 GMT

In article <461@bit.UUCP>, thomas@bit.UUCP (Thomas Walter) writes:
> 
> 
> Topless in a Topless roadster... sounds like fun!
> 
> Not recommended on the California to Washington Interstate, I-5, just too 
> much traffic, unless it is two a.m Then it is too cold :-(
>... 

Rest of great experience deleted to "save on bandwidth and boredom".

When I first moved to Phoenix, Arizona in 1971, my company had me going out to
Rialto, California during the week for eight weeks of training and I would 
drive back home for the weekends. I had a 1969 Fiat 850 Sport Spyder and I left
the top down for the full four years that I lived there. I was on the third 
shift so I got off work at 7:00 A.M. on Friday morning and hit I-10 for
Phoenix. I would wear my swim trunks as I left town, fill up with gas, buy a
pound of bing cherries and a six pack of tall cold ones (this was in July and
August with the temperature between 105 and 110 across the desert), and about
Palm Springs I would slip the swim suit off for the rest of the trip. The only
people that seemed to notice was a couple of retirement age folks pulling a
camping trailor that honked their horn and gave me the thumbs up gesture as I
went by them. By the time I got to Phoenix, (good name for a song but I think
it's been done) the cherries were gone and so was the six pack, (never had to
make a pottie stop because I was sweating it all out). When I got to the house
I would be so exhausted from the heat that I had to head straight for the pool
just to get my head straight again before even going inside. Sunscreen hadn't
caught on yet so I had to rely on my previous tan to get by. It felt great with
the wind and the sun when I would start each trip but by the time I got home I
was wishing I had a sedan with air conditioning. 

I have been told that it is perfectly legal to drive a motorhome nude now. Does
anyone have any facts on this? A fellow at the local resort (Mt. Aire Ranch)
says that he does it all the time but didn't know of the laws that deal with
it.  
-- 






            ***   It's never to late to have a happy childhood!

********************************************************************************
V024971@PLATO.LSVL8.STORTEK.COM / Opinions expressed are usually my own but
Robert_Waddell@Stortek.com     / perhaps shared (though not by my employer).
********************************************************************************