Berkeley's "Naked Guy" Dead at 33

May 21, 2006 10:06 PM

Berkeley's infamous Naked Guy died of an apparent suicide on Thursday. Before and after his 15 minutes, he was a real person. People loved him. Rest in peace, Andrew Martinez. (NSFW)
posted by freshwater_pr0n (65 comments total)

I guess you could say he never really found his towel.
posted by dhartung at 10:34 PM on May 21, 2006

Well, that sucks. Viva nudity, I say. Never seen a coherent argument against it... other than staying warm, of course.
posted by brundlefly at 10:45 PM on May 21, 2006

.
posted by sacrilicious at 10:57 PM on May 21, 2006

This is sad... and a little creepy. Something made me think about the 'Naked Guy' in the last couple of weeks. Can't recall what it was - probably saw someone wearing a handkerchief on their head. If I'm not mistaken, Martinez used to wear a handkerchief on his head, then put it down on the chair before sitting.

I was in college about the same time he was and I always thought it was pretty cool that the guy was confident and comfortable enough with himself to run around in the buff... and doubly cool that Berkeley was the kind of place where you could more or less get away with public nudity. Also had friends at Cal who say him every now and again.

It didn't occur to me that his behavior was possibly the result of mental illness. It undermines the notion that he was doing it out of confidence. Also didn't know he was arrested in Berkeley and eventually kicked out of Cal.

Really a shame.
posted by Davenhill at 10:59 PM on May 21, 2006

.
posted by Rhomboid at 11:10 PM on May 21, 2006

Rest in peace. I hope they bury him naked.

I think his high water mark came when Jeremy Piven said,

"Alright! The Naked Guy! Now it's a party!"
posted by Parannoyed at 11:13 PM on May 21, 2006

.

This is pretty sad.
posted by greycap at 11:18 PM on May 21, 2006

man that sucks. i was just leaving cal when he showed up. never had a class with him but my brother-in-law apparently did. didnt realize he had problems with mental illness. RIP dude.
posted by joeblough at 11:24 PM on May 21, 2006

.

Speaking as one for whom nudity and the University of California experience are inextricably entwined, this news is very saddening.
posted by jtron at 11:42 PM on May 21, 2006

He died from insanity, but it wasn't his. It was the insanity of a society who locks someone up for being nude. The insanity of a sex-obsessed society that insists one man's nudity somehow sexually harasses a woman.

Nudity != sex/sexuality
posted by Goofyy at 11:46 PM on May 21, 2006

.

He was and is way better than the Naked Cowboy (who's not naked) not only because he was full-on naked but also because he wasn't doing it to make a buck.

And how cool would it have been to never have to worry about what to wear?
posted by fenriq at 11:51 PM on May 21, 2006

Goofyy: while you could certanly argue that our sexual mores are not grounded in sanity, it's a bit hard to argue that he was not also insane. I mean, society didn't put a plastic bag over his head.
posted by delmoi at 11:52 PM on May 21, 2006

I'll tell you one thing. If we all went around naked, we'd be a hell of a lot more concerned with our own physical upkeep. No pesky clothing to hide our flab.

(And don't give me any bullshit about nudist ideals being the letting go of all physical vanity.)
posted by Parannoyed at 11:55 PM on May 21, 2006

delmoi: it's a bit hard to argue that he was not also insane. I mean, society didn't put a plastic bag over his head.

Hey wait a sec...
suicide != insane
grrr... >:(
posted by hincandenza at 12:05 AM on May 22, 2006

ϊ
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 12:08 AM on May 22, 2006

Goofyy: He died from insanity, but it wasn't his. It was the insanity of a society who locks someone up for being nude. The insanity of a sex-obsessed society that insists one man's nudity somehow sexually harasses a woman.

Oh, come on. If something so minor as having to wear clothing was enough to make him kill himself, he was all kinds of crazy. From reading the article, however, it sounds as if he'd had trouble with mental illness all his life.

I tend to think society's problem with nudity is overblown, but I don't think it's a good idea for people to go around without clothes. Clothing serves important purposes both hygienic and aesthetic; do you REALLY want to see 90% of people naked? Humans, outside of a small proportion, are really pretty ugly animals.

Not to mention that if everyone went around naked, skin cancer rates would go through the roof.
posted by Mitrovarr at 12:57 AM on May 22, 2006

Humans, outside of a small proportion, are really pretty ugly animals.

Particularly if our sense of aesthetics comes from Playboy and Calvin Klein ads.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:08 AM on May 22, 2006

PeterMcDermott: Particularly if our sense of aesthetics comes from Playboy and Calvin Klein ads.

But not only then. Sometimes people are lumpy and/or wrinkled, and the lack of fur means that any physical imperfection is glaringly obvious. Not to mention that a lot of people are morbidly obese. Also, some people have skin diseases and hygiene problems. I really REALLY don't want to have to walk around and see all that. The occasional hottie, while awesome, would not be worth it.
posted by Mitrovarr at 1:15 AM on May 22, 2006

Mitrovarr, your comments only serve to show a thoroughly shallow nature. I'd keep them quiet if I were you.
posted by catchmurray at 1:28 AM on May 22, 2006

Yes, Mitrovarr. Unpopular ideas should never be spoken or written down.
posted by chasing at 1:30 AM on May 22, 2006

It's getting hard to breathe in here with all the snarkiness. Quick! somebody post kitten pictures!!
posted by Parannoyed at 1:38 AM on May 22, 2006

We only find nude bodies (old, unattractive, unhygenic, whatever) disturbing because it is not our culture to be nude. There are many people in the world who wear little or no clothing, often because it makes the most sense climatically, but also because that is their culture. It's not innately "human" to wear clothes, it's innately Modern Western or Asian or North African...

But frankly, I'm actually Victorian, and I faint constantly from the ankles I see every day. It's shocking!
posted by jb at 1:53 AM on May 22, 2006

Part of the reason why the "imperfections" of the human body bother you so much is because we live in a society which sees the body as inherently "bad", and thus your entire impression of the naked form is biased from the start.
Crazy or not, the Naked Guy made an important point.
posted by nightchrome at 1:56 AM on May 22, 2006

Also, everyone who shares Modern Western taboos against exposing genitalia (including women's breasts) will obviously understand other culture's taboos against exposing women's hair or even face (even if they do not agree with them). Some women in western countries wear the hijab because their families pressure them to, but many do so because not wearing hijab feels to them like going without a shirt feels to many women from Western culture.
posted by jb at 1:58 AM on May 22, 2006

I'm glad to see that people here don't see anything wrong with nudity in principle. So sad that it turns out the difference between believing in a man's right to nudity and actually going outside nude is mental illness.

Also, everyone who shares Modern Western taboos against exposing genitalia (including women's breasts) will obviously understand other culture's taboos against exposing women's hair or even face (even if they do not agree with them).

jb makes an excellent point.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 2:10 AM on May 22, 2006

catchmurray: Mitrovarr, your comments only serve to show a thoroughly shallow nature. I'd keep them quiet if I were you.

Oh yes, I am such a terrible person because I do not want to see unattractive people's bodies. You, on the other hand, have no problem with the morbidly obese walking around naked. Or, far more likely, you just aren't willing to say it.

jb: Also, everyone who shares Modern Western taboos against exposing genitalia (including women's breasts) will obviously understand other culture's taboos against exposing women's hair or even face (even if they do not agree with them).

It's worth noting that the taboo against exposing genitalia is shared by nearly all of the planet, it's not just us (the breast thing is especially severe for us, but I don't see at least half the world's population violating it wantonly either.) And the face and hair covering taboos are the product of a culture that is extremely repressive to women in other ways.

Anyways, I don't mean to reinforce the taboo. Taboos are irrational. I merely want to state that there are, in fact, rational reasons not to walk around naked; hygiene, sun protection, and weather protection are all essential. It's a bigger deal for hygiene than most people think; walking around naked (and barefoot, especially) would quickly spread a lot of minor skin diseases like athlete's foot and some varieties of parasites. The aesthetic issue is of course not rational, but it is important to me, so I added it in as well.

nightchrome: Part of the reason why the "imperfections" of the human body bother you so much is because we live in a society which sees the body as inherently "bad", and thus your entire impression of the naked form is biased from the start.

Partly, but I think it goes deeper than that. I think it is intrinsic to us to dislike seeing any damaged or unhealthy lifeform; doesn't it depress you to see a dog with mange, or a tree that some vandal hacked up? With animals, it takes a severe weight problem or severe age to cause apparent harm, but with humans, very minor problems show up extremely badly. It's partly because you recognize smaller details in your own species, but it's also the lack of fur. It makes smaller defects more obvious.
posted by Mitrovarr at 3:14 AM on May 22, 2006

Part of the reason why the "imperfections" of the human body bother you so much is because we live in a society which sees the body as inherently "bad", and thus your entire impression of the naked form is biased from the start

Our society sees the body as inherently bad? Sounds a bit too catholic for my liking. Maybe that could be rephrased as "society which sees the non-healthy-and-youthful body as inherently not particularly attractive"...?
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:16 AM on May 22, 2006

And how cool would it have been to never have to worry about what to wear?

And cheaper!
posted by yoga at 4:32 AM on May 22, 2006

.
posted by amberglow at 5:38 AM on May 22, 2006

Why is the 'imperfection' thing even on the table? I saw a picture of this Naked Guy, and, pardon me, he was hot.

Athletes foot would disappear if everyone went barefoot. The bare foot is not a good environment for fungus. Not that I think barefeet are practical. (although in my country of residence, it is amazing how many adult men I see at the grocery that way).

I never suggested Naked Guy lacked a mental health issue. Certainly he had issues. A sane person would have understood nudity is not an issue one can push very far. But he was in jail when he did himself, and he was there only for being naked. Because the sick society insists that naked = sex = bad. That is, IMO, sick.
posted by Goofyy at 6:02 AM on May 22, 2006

Actually, he was in jail for assault. Nonetheless, let's remember him by being a bit kinder to someone we meet or know who has mental problems (I hate that expression). Not just today, but from now on.
posted by sluglicker at 6:16 AM on May 22, 2006

I hope they bury him naked.

:)
posted by uncanny hengeman at 6:20 AM on May 22, 2006

As someone who lived in Berkeley for nine years, I can testify that nothing de-eroticizes nudity more than the Berkeley X-Plicit Players. Ex-Hippies + 35 Years of Gravity = The horror, horror...
posted by jonp72 at 6:29 AM on May 22, 2006

Age != horror...but I can understand why you youngsters might think so. It's not like the TV Internet doesn't tell ya so. Just remember this when the hotties laugh in your face and your wife/partner tells you to stop flirting with kids.
posted by Goofyy at 6:43 AM on May 22, 2006

So what's the deal, did he just get boners in public and it didn't embarrass him, or could he "control" it?

Really, I don't care at all on aesthetic or "moral" grounds if people, ugly or pretty, go everywhere naked. But for hygienic and psychological reasons, I strongly do not want to sit where naked nuts/asses/cunts have been. Also, it doesn't create many additional problems for me if men and women are naked, but I believe it creates many more opportunities for men to subtly get away with publicly sexually harassing and humiliating women ("accidently" rubbing up against them, etc.). So clothes are generally a pretty good rule for the ass/genital region. Not on television, but for public, yes.

If people disagree with such a basic and reasonable rule that bad, that they will damage major parts of their lives to oppose it, more power to them, but talk about choosing your battles poorly.
posted by dgaicun at 6:59 AM on May 22, 2006

Mitrovarr, I am wondering what hygiene reasons you are imagining clothes help with? Is it the skin that is shed into the clothes that would other wise be going somewhere else?
Alot of the reasons for the hygiene argument are a function of city living and high-density lifestyles. The idea of going through a day naked can be a good mental exercise in showing us what aspects of our quotidian lifestyle are at odds with and separate from nature.
Other than the temperature, that is.

Clothes may cause skin problems themselves.

Having said that, padded cycling shorts are a good thing.

And

.
posted by asok at 7:01 AM on May 22, 2006

.
posted by lilboo at 8:07 AM on May 22, 2006

I'll tell you one thing. If we all went around naked, we'd be a hell of a lot more concerned with our own physical upkeep.

You're kidding, right? Have you ever actually seen nudists?

Personally, I like clothes. They are all kinds of handy. I like pockets, I like protection from the sun and the cold, I like having my peen put away where it won't get easily hurt, and shoes are, frankly, necessity in our concrete and glass world.

Plus, they can be decorative.

Not that I'm against Nude Dude walking around with his dick swinging, if that's what he wants. Although I'm not sure exactly what his point was.

I'm a little confused though. Is it politically correct to shock folks who are uncomfortable with nakedness, or is that too much of a tar baby to get into a discussion about?
posted by moonbiter at 8:24 AM on May 22, 2006

Oh, and
.
posted by moonbiter at 8:25 AM on May 22, 2006

.
posted by trip and a half at 8:37 AM on May 22, 2006

I gotta say, Mitrovarr is absolutely right. Hygiene is important. I believe it was the great David Sedaris who pointed out that nudist colonies are obsessed with ensuring that people carry around towels for sittin' purposes.
posted by kittyprecious at 8:55 AM on May 22, 2006

Humans, outside of a small proportion, are really pretty ugly animals.

That's just, like, your opinion, man.
posted by squirrel at 9:02 AM on May 22, 2006

No, most humans, myself included, from the neck down are all kinds of ugly. Sorry. "Freedom" just ain't enough of an excuse to wander everywhere nude.

But . for the poor fella.
posted by grubi at 9:24 AM on May 22, 2006

How many of the people posting here are nude right now? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Don't talk the talk if you won't walk the walk.
posted by JekPorkins at 9:32 AM on May 22, 2006

I hate the restriction of living inside a dwelling. The social opression that compels honest folk to keep their belongings separated from the majesty of nature needs to be challenged.
posted by setanor at 10:05 AM on May 22, 2006

One time I saw an old woman and her face was all shriveled up. I don't want to see people's ugly faces. Wear a mask granny!

If it was legal to be naked in public I would still wear clothes, he'll I don't even like wearing shorts, but the aesthetic argument against allowing people to dress or not as they like is fucking stupid.
posted by I Foody at 10:09 AM on May 22, 2006

I was at Cal, and then teaching ESL nearby at the time, and I remember the hygene issue was one that came up alot in the "official" discussion. Although I never had a class with him, I do remember that seeing him go by was always an occasion for an uncontrollable smile and a silent, "god bless Berkeley."

So sad to find he had trouble later, he was a very charismatic guy, and one had high hopes that such an iconoclast could make it in the mean old world.

As for "western" ideas about nudity, I just got back from the Canary Islands, and the predominantly German tourists there didn't seem to share much of the naked body issues expressed above. Fatties and hotties, men and women, old and young all out flapping in the breeze - it didn't seem to matter to anyone else what you wore or didn't wear. I couldn't help thinking about another recent trip to Minnesota, where I was upbraided by a teenage lifeguard for letting my 3 year old (toilet trained) be naked at a lake. He said, "You know, sexual predators..." Wha?

Is it my problem, or the Germans', or the naked guy's, that people assign some value to nakedness? Live your own life, please.
posted by ubi at 10:17 AM on May 22, 2006

He was a nice guy -- of all the axe-grinding activists I met in five years at Berkeley, he had the least self-righteous attitude about his particular agenda.

I always found his cheerful single-mindedness admirable, in a skewed sort of way. Turns out he just had a singularly anodyne way of giving expression to incipient mental illness...
posted by MattD at 10:20 AM on May 22, 2006

I think that clothing can be a valuable tool. I threw a fancy-dress party the other night and was shocked to find how suave and beautiful some of my scumbag friends could look. I think the problem is that people don't dress to dress well day-to-day. Most of us can't afford it, so we wear what's clean. We wear what's lying around. We dress to conform to temporary fashion trends. If that's what most people are doing (and that's how it looks to me), then I think they might as well be naked, size/shape be damned.

Look at this guy (r.i.p.), he's got an attractive body, but he'd just be another shlub in a Raiders jersey and Levis.

I don't know how much cheaper it would be to go naked. I'd wager a lot more dough goes into body makeup, jewelry, body jewelry, hair accessories, 6-blade razors, tattoos, tanning products (ick), and assorted other pieces of flair that people need to feel individual/attractive, but it would probably save a fair amount of time in the morning.

Full disclosure: I used to be the naked guy at parties, and due to wait loss/gain my shirt is too tight and my pants are too loose. I very much respect the role of shoes, pockets, hats, and jackets.
posted by elr at 10:46 AM on May 22, 2006

Turns out he just had a singularly anodyne way of giving expression to incipient mental illness...

Correlation does not equal causation, Matt. Didn't they teach you that at Cal? His mental illness may have been unrelated to his nudist activism. Or perhaps you're saying at all nudism activists are mentally ill?

Also, all you bodies-are-ugly folks make me sad. hygiene and practical issues aside, your inherent distaste for all but a tiny fraction of human bodies suggests that you're living in profoundly false consciousness. Your aesthetic rejection of our species boggles my mind, but then I may lack sufficient indoctrination in hegemonic body types.

No fat chicks!
Am I getting warmer?
posted by squirrel at 11:49 AM on May 22, 2006

I saw this guy before. I was driving through Berkeley after a long night of partying. There I was, hung over and tired. And I lean over to get a tape from the floor of my car while stopped at a red light. I sat back up and crossing the road right in front of me was this guy - butt naked except for a pair of shoes and a smile.

"Man, it's too early in the morning for this. heh."

The light turned green and I drove home.

RIP, Naked Guy!
posted by drstein at 11:52 AM on May 22, 2006

.

(on another note, if I have to read the word "bloghorrea" once more, I'm giving up on the Internet)
posted by spiderskull at 12:41 PM on May 22, 2006

Also, all you bodies-are-ugly folks make me sad. hygiene and practical issues aside, your inherent distaste for all but a tiny fraction of human bodies suggests that you're living in profoundly false consciousness. Your aesthetic rejection of our species boggles my mind, but then I may lack sufficient indoctrination in hegemonic body types.

Hahahah!

Wait, that was supposed to be sarcastic, right?
posted by SweetJesus at 2:12 PM on May 22, 2006

Full disclosure: I used to be the naked guy at parties

Haven't we all, at some point, been the naked guy at parties? I know I have.
posted by Sparx at 2:44 PM on May 22, 2006

So you're the one who ruined the mashed potatoes last Saturday!
posted by fandango_matt at 4:21 PM on May 22, 2006

Beneath our clothes we are all naked.
posted by brain_drain at 4:39 PM on May 22, 2006

Et tu, SweetJesus?
posted by squirrel at 5:30 PM on May 22, 2006

Beneath our clothes we are all naked.

Actually I've got another outfit on under there...
posted by jalexei at 6:25 PM on May 22, 2006

it sounds as if he'd had trouble with mental illness all his life.

Andrew wasn't crazy all his life- just near the end. I don't think he was crazy to protest @ Berkeley. Not that I share his views, but I don't think he was crazy when he did it.
posted by bananesf at 9:58 PM on May 22, 2006

I think it is intrinsic to us to dislike seeing any damaged or unhealthy lifeform; doesn't it depress you to see a dog with mange, or a tree that some vandal hacked up? With animals, it takes a severe weight problem or severe age to cause apparent harm, but with humans, very minor problems show up extremely badly. It's partly because you recognize smaller details in your own species, but it's also the lack of fur. It makes smaller defects more obvious.
posted by Mitrovarr at 3:14 AM PST on May 22

I never thought about the subject this way, Mitrovarr. This is a very insightful idea and I agree with you completely: I think there really is something distressing about the sight of an unhealthy lifeform, and our lack of fur makes our flaws obvious.
posted by soiled cowboy at 10:29 PM on May 22, 2006

Since some people seem to have no problem with ugly people naked, should I inline in this thread a photograph of myself naked, just to illustrate the discussion?

By the way, I am selling brain scrubs, if anyone needs to scrub off mental images...
posted by qvantamon at 10:30 PM on May 22, 2006

Look at this guy (r.i.p.), he's got an attractive body, but he'd just be another shlub in a Raiders jersey and Levis.

It took me a minute to realize why he looked worse in a suit and tie than he did naked...those clothes don't fit him well. I wonder if that was intentional?
posted by pax digita at 10:33 PM on May 22, 2006

Martinez's run-ins with the law began in the fall of 1992, when he was arrested for indecent exposure while jogging naked near southside dormitories at 11 on a Saturday night.

The charges were dropped, but he was arrested again when he showed up at his court date naked.

Ballsy move.
posted by soiled cowboy at 10:36 PM on May 22, 2006

The even more ballsy part was he even had kind of a small weenie.
posted by dgaicun at 2:58 AM on May 23, 2006

Ballsy move.

Walking into a court naked? You can't say the man wasn't cocky.
posted by Jairus at 4:24 PM on May 23, 2006