By the way, one of the baffling aspects of the situation is how McCarthy himself is handling things. It’s not just that they keep having these votes where he keeps losing, and somehow he actually had less support in the latest votes which is just insane. Okay, that you could technically argue is because of the rebel…

Pretty sure this is why Paul Ryan quit politics.  He was smart enough to see the writing on the wall that THIS is where the GOP was headed.  Still hate him with a passion, but, admire him for his foresight.

Lol’ing at whoever voted for Trump. That’s some “I’m bored and you’re boring me” level shit right there.

And of course even if McCarthy survives this the second he works with the Democrats on must pass legislation - or any legislation that doesn’t include something about the border or Hunter Biden’s laptop - one of the knuckleheads on the far right will initiate a vote to oust him as Speaker. And then the circus will…

I’ve long thought that when the histories of this time are written, Pelosi will be remembered as one of the most consequential and effective Speakers in history.

This is just astonishing. Like somehow it is a worse dragging through the mud than I expected. At this point I don’t even see how McCarthy could function as the Speaker as he would have basically ceded all power to a vocal minority of the Republicans. Also Jesus Christ it must be infuriating for the ‘moderate’…

For most casual non-daily consumers, however, earning points for a free cup of coffee feels a lot more relevant, and to make that harder to achieve just feels insulting.

You realize it’s not real, right? It’s a play. Creep.

It would have been two boys, because boys are who they used to play girls back then.

“They weren’t traumatized at the time by this event”

“But are we supposed to be actually litigating changing social mores?”

They were unable to sue until now as the statute of limitations had already passed. Whose to say they haven’t been quietly lobbying Paramount about this for years, but Paramount refused to do anything because of the aforementioned statute?

Huh? I mean, if they’re freaking TEENAGERS who didn’t agree to nudity, then yes. You can imply nudity without showing any. The ‘96 Baz Lurhmann version does not contain any nipples.

This is an incredibly stupid hill to die on. We aren’t entitled to seeing a 15-year old’s naked body and the director had no right to request it, you willfully obtuse creep.

Who cares? It was exploitative, regardless of how they felt about it. It’s fundamentally wrong for adults to coerce underaged people into doing nude scenes. Especially when the scenes aren’t essential to the plot. I’m pretty sure back when the play was originally performed they didn’t have two young men getting naked…

People: *explains in simple terms*

Not only that, but they’re specifically doing it now because the statute of limitations has been suspended for just such purposes. Whether they felt traumatized when it happened or not, they surely didn’t feel like they had any legitimate manner of recourse at the time, but now they do.

The problem isn’t “criminalization of the body”, the problem is exploitation of minors. They aren’t suing because they’re nude, they’re suing because adults pressured them into being filmed in the nude.

I dunno man, the maturity level of that particular room of 14-year-olds was very very low -- or, exactly where most expect -- and it was the only thing we talked about the rest of the year. It was relatively early in the school year and she totally lost the class after that.

“Prompted by a new California law that temporarily suspended the statute of limitations on sexual abuse claims,”