Was Linda Carol Really 16?

No WAAAAAAAAAY she was 16 (in this movie) she looks older then my older sister who's 31!

"Get In Touch With Your Inner Bitch!"

This (esp Brooke S) reminds me of the old Playboy cartoon, possibly from the late 60's (can't think of the cartoonist's name. He was famous for satirical drawings).
Huge office, leering old studio head behind desk, mother (from something John Waters would cast) saying to her 10yo girl... 'go ahead honey - show the nice man your little titties'.
Interesting to think who's being exploited here, and by who. I'm guessing these girls were excited to get the work, and weren't that concerned about the nudity. Were their parents or agents more excited?

Nudity aside, who would let their 16yo do a crappy, sadistic movie like this! And I'm not sure nudity advances your career much, unless it is for more nudity. I'm guessing it opens some doors, but closes others.

Most of Hollywood is exploited, young and old. I don't think nudity per se is that bad. Any 12yo who's walked thru a mall knows what it's like to be undressed by the eyes of creepy guys. (OK, ALL guys. The creepy ones advertise their creepiness)

Hollywood exploitation - and this isn't a Terrible example, just one that points to the soullessness that exists there - Moe Howard (3 stooges lead) was (?) the last surviving Stooge. The studio head felt sorry for him and let him do odd jobs, wash his car and such. Surely demeaning work for a past star who needed the money. One day Moe found out there had been a resurgence in Stooges shorts, and for many years the studio had been making a fortune when TV showed them every afternoon. The Stooges never saw a penny, tho they were due royalties. The guy was not only greedy - he wanted them to suffer. All for a small percentage of the fees. I can't imagine how crushing this must have been to an old man - who made a LOT of money for the studio over a few decades.
(and kind of like the Dixie Chicks, who made $220M for Sony, yet, when Dan Rather asked them if they were millionaires, it kind of slapped them in the face to realize they weren't)

It kind of does matter actually, the fact that most nudity is put in movies to entice (note all the comments that get asked and talked about for almost every girl in every movie), and the fact that its a child put forth to do the enticing. Thats great that some people wont find it a turn on (and for obvious reasons shouldnt), but the director needs to be responsible and either A) just skip or slightly redo the nude scene, B) just get an actor or actress whos old enough. Body doubles wouldnt cut it for me with this, as its still the child that would be thought of in the end. I cant tell you how many losers ive heard of watching a movie to catch a brief glimpse of nudity, like.. isnt that the kind of thing 12 year old boys do? Either way, wouldnt it be easier to just get the right age person rather than having to get awkward with the parents with a question like that? Who are these people that are fighting so hard to have kids naked in movies? Lets face it, most nude scenes in movies are pointless and put in basically to attract the same type losers described above. Sex and being naked is normal yet when its made into a big deal by movies etc, it gives people the idea subconsciously that it isnt. Movies have been blurring the line between sex and exploitation, sex and violence etc for so long now, and people wonder why theres so many whackjob pedos, and serial killers over in the west. im not saying films are the cause or anything, but they do constitute a large part of how people make decisions, and what society deems normal or not. Tv is not different obviously. Its no coincidence that people without tvs are more independant thinking and have better attention spans. Its no coincidence the west has more serial killers than places that dont have movies portaying the serial killer as a main character that is loved by the audience.