Had to ask anyway. The younger generation sees a remake that is just so old and calls it "old" not knowing there is an original version out there.

"Sharing is caring," or so I'm told. Plus, I have an affinity for the Au Naturels! Ooohlala!

This is Tron... He fights for the users.

https://youtu.be/8kcgosLwPDE

Warriors of the grid.

https://youtu.be/-BZxGhNdz1k

I understand most of what you're saying here - just trying to understand the ending of it.

Would this be the number of fools in society in general or the number of fools which subscribe to the cult?

Side note: The Nicholas Cage adaptation of "The Wicker Man" is a remake from a 1973 English version of the story.

Extra side note: Rod Stewart actually attempted to have The Wicker Man banned before its 1973 release because Britt Ekland appears naked in the movie and she was his girlfriend at the time.

https://youtu.be/a-tDnavDCwI

https://youtu.be/9aFVSkncq00

I'm not a big Cranberries fan. But, what she says about her father and how she says it could be left open for interpretation.
I don't think she's implying sexual abuse because there seems to be plenty of other things she's griping about.
I would end up shredding this song if I had to detail it - it's just something I can't relate to.
Every generation has their view.
Guess I'm old and set in my ways.

I was addressing the situation as it pertains to the West.
You are correct, the fake magazine world is all about looks and status. And here in the West, those magazines target impressionable boys and girls, young men and women who get the idea that this is the reality. Perhaps you haven't seen some of the fashion trends our Western girls wear and the amount of make-up they apply.
But, more importantly, the example and meaning of love set is very different since single parent families make up very large percentages of homes that boys and girls (sons and daughters) are raised in.
In many cases of split relationships, one person walks away with jaded feelings and many times will ascribe those feelings onto their kids.
But, kids do not remain such forever. They grow (physically) into young men and women, and with that they carry a societal (or collective) view that has been impressed upon them.
Look good.
Get rich.
Attain power.

Further, when the make-up of the model is taken away, what remains is what is natural. Even then, the person beneath is above average looking to extremely beautiful (they wouldn't be models if they weren't). Make up actually works.
My gripe is this; promoting beauty is one thing, but the way Hollywood defines the not so beautiful is disgusting - take the series "Ugly Betty" for example.... The actress who portrays ugly Betty is actually very pretty.
In both comedy movies "Scooby Doo" Velma (a character that is not meant to be physically attractive) is played by an actress that is smoking hot.
Hollywood, magazines, television shows, the news and even society itself may talk about social outcasts based on looks, but still continues to misrepresent people who aren't gifted with looks.
As if to say; the most acceptable amount of "ugliness" begins here, and anyone "uglier" than that should not exist.

I'm impressed with our double standards. Do you know we have 300 pound ballerinas because they have a right to feel good about themselves? I'm called names and told not to "fat shame" just for pointing that out, mostly by a media-driven society - the same media that promotes "health and beauty" aids. The same media that says you should be height/weight proportionate. The same media that capitalizes on ratings when that ballerina commits suicide because she can't even live up to the standard of what it is to be ugly....

Few genuinely possess the power to look beyond the wrapping to the person inside and if that person has the ability to complete you regardless of what you see, I would consider you 1 in a million (or more).

Lol! I think that's what makes you far braver than I, and Sports Illustraited will never know your awsomeness (but, that's their loss).

I stated a fact based on the tendencies males and females experience.
I didn't mention the issue of ***sex drive between men and women, because that's usually equal in both. What I DID mention was the frequency of thought when it comes to ***sex and more than 70 decades of data indicate men think about ***sex more often on a daily basis than women (it's not soly my opinion.)

Regarding the statement of "staying in my own lane," I was actually addressing Lano when you crossed the lane -

but, nonetheless, men and women aren't obscure creatures when it comes down to their needs, wants or desires.

But.....that's the common tendency in all people - to choose balance, that which is pleasing to the eye and fair to the sight.
After all, you didn't choose Quasimoto or the Jack Black type.

I think the question is somewhat amiss. The real question being is; Can a very attractive woman be attracted to a Jack Black type.

Generally, the answer is 'no.'

The reoccurring tide of reproduction is necessary for mankind to continue.

A man thinks about ***sex all day long.
A woman thinks about ***sex much less. In the end, women determine when a guy is going to get "lucky," or not.

Looks primarily control the drive and desire of ***sex.

A guy sees a super-fine babe and his kocx barks and wags like a dog out of control.

The same guy sees a woman of average looks and, when necessary, can proudly rise to occasion.

And, finally, the same guy sees something that constitutes a female as a species of mountain razorback troll, his nuts roll up like vinition blinds and his rod retracts like an AM/FM radio antenna.

When it comes to looks and appearances which control the drive and desire of ***sex, I would say the same thing applies to the ladies, but....it's much worse.

Women are more self conscience when it comes to thier looks and it has nothing to do with societal standards more than the nature of the gender itself.

Women know where they stand when it comes to looks because it's a game they've already worked out among themselves first.

Is the prettiest of the lot going to be attracted to a bowling ball? No. She's going to be lit up when she meets her "Tom Jones," "Sean Connery," or "Charlton Heston."

Guys of lesser looks don't have the power to control that regardless of their own great personality.

The game of pairing up. The game of being sorted out. The game of what remains becomes more desperate with successfully less choices.

Attractive people are attracted to other people who are attractive. The sorting hat of society never changes and no one (in the end) gives a flip about personality.

Unattractive people aren't naturally attracted to other people who are unattractive but such is the lot in life and thus is what there is to choose from.

If you had the capability if interstellar travel you would not be allowed to enjoy the benefit and likely would be "erased."

But, with that aside.....

It is said that an object in motion has a tendency to stay in motion.

It is my understanding that a black hole has the ability to discourse light from its intended path.

Being the case, gravity itself should have the ability to propel an object faster than the speed of light (even if that object could not structurally withstand it). The potential exists.

The natural flow of gravity of objects that are independent of each other seems to flow from the outside to the inside.

However -

When an object begins to spin, the flow of gravity changes direction flowing from the inside to the outside.

Centrifugal force is still a potential candidate for generating gravity waves that could be used for propulsion.

Other than the potential for gravity propulsion, traveling to distant locations by means of interdimesional portal technology would be a better method.