Was the naked lesbian scene needed?

Was the nudity really necessary, you can have a horror movie without it. ... like the last 20 million gore fest movies we've had over the last 9 years since this article was posted... but let's face it, you can have a horror movie without nudity and gore, like the other 20 million ghost stories we've had the last 9 years, as well. ... But then again, you can have a horror movie without nudity, gore and ghosts.... You can just use classic scare tactics, like loud noises and cats jumping out. ... But I'm pretty sure, you can have a horror movie without gore, or ghosts, or nudity or classic scare tactics, or monster makeup, or violence, or evil clowns or porceline dolls or psychotics running amok.

God forbid a horror movie has nudity in it.

However, if they did suddenly decide to cover up the women's bodies in horror movies, as to not offend anyone, they should cover up their hair, as well.

I'm being sarcastic in this entire article.

I found the lesbian scene lame and forced in a wannabe edgy way. It had no place in the story, but appeals to the target audience, adolescent or adolescent-minded males. Some posters here say the lesbian sequence develops Calita Rainford's character, who earlier made a comment that pegged her as a lesbian; and thus the ghosts were using that inclination to mess with her. That's a legitimate reason to justify the scene, but it felt forced to me, like the filmmakers were trying to be 'hip' or whatever.

The film, as a whole, is decidedly pedestrian and lacks any artistic finesse. Say what you will about 2005's "Death Tunnel," but at least it balanced the conventional adolescent horror shenanigans with kinetic editing & effects and an awesome sense of artistry. It had superior women too.