Sex education is the act of informing younger and adult generations about everything they need to know about sex. Sex education is one of the most controversial issues in education, which has been floating on educational institutions since ages.
™
Sex education is not just about sex. It includes other sensitive issues like sexual health, sexual reproduction, sexuality and others that parents often feel uncomfortable talking with their children. Therefore, it becomes the responsibility of schools to address this issue, and inform and educate students about it as much as possible.
Often, sexual education in schools is considered as a recreational course rather than a serious issue. There are many pros and cons of sexual education being taught in easy contact lens the public schools.
Pros of sex education in schools:
- Classes are gender-exclusive. This saves embarrassment among students and teach them only what they need to know based on their gender.
- Properly taught, sexual education could become a regular and ongoing Human Anatomy and Biology complete with tests and grading that goes toward graduation credits.
- Students can be taught the correct terms of the reproductive system of sexually transmitted diseases and contraception birth instead of "street slang."
- Myths surrounding sex can be dispelled (for example, can not get pregnant the first time).
- Studies show that many teenagers become sexually active before the inclusion of educational classes. Principles of inclusion of classes has been shown to help students stay or to abstain or at least be responsible if they are active.
- Proper education can have an impact on the prevention of sexual problems in adulthood.
Cons of sex education in schools:
- Students may still be subject to embarrassment or excitable by subject matter. This can make for out of control classrooms if students take to laugh or make inappropriate comments.
- Most education is taught as a brief interlude in physical education or health class. This is not enough time to relate effectively to serious material.
- Often, sexual education can go against moral or religious beliefs of an individual. Many schools do not teach abstinence-only, but to teach how to have sex safely, while many of the religious and family stress marriage before intercourse.
- Sex education is often seen as a "recreational" course and not a serious issue (this is a direct correlation with the fact that there are no grades or scores to be derived from class).
- Teachers are not always adequately trained to teach sexual education and may violate their own beliefs or morals on the subject rather than continuing with the facts.
- The attitudes of parents, educators and religious leaders in the community can make the stuff that vary from state to state or even school-to-school.
Method Acting is based loosely on Stanislavsky's method, but utilizes 'Sense Memory' for emotional preparation. Stanislavsky himself experimented with 'sense memory' for the better part of his career and abandoned it for being unreliable.
'Sense Memory' in a nut-shell being the use of personal memories to affect and achieve appropriate emotional preparedness before engaging in a scene. Stanislavsky (as well as Adler and Meisner) eventually realized that personal memories and experiences alter greatly with the passage of time, as in, what mattered to you a great deal when you were four may present very little 'emotional' impact at the age of 45.
As it is based on personal experience, the preponderance of modern adherants tend to subject themselves to all manner of potentially dangerous situations to achieve a truly realistic experience to draw from. This has manifested in such things as experimental drug use (which actually lead to addiction and death in the case of River Phoenix) and placing themselves into actual, immediate physical stresses or harm.
A famous story regarding Dustin Hoffman (a purported 'method' actor) during the filming of 'The Marathon Man' tells of Mr. Hoffman running all around Manhatten during filming to force himself into a true state of exhaustion (which would be true for the character as well.) Sir Laurence Olivier on seeing this behaviour is quoted as saying "Good Lord man, just act."
While I think 'Method Acting' can be a valuable tool, and many excellent actors are staunch supporters. Me personally, I find it too dangerous and limiting to achieve a safe and more importantly, sane acting career. The pros are very realistic performances based on actual, lived experiences. The cons are potential mental and physical harm from engaging in dangerous behaviour and unreliable performances.
Whatever you decide to do as an actor, it is worth mentioning that there are many safer methods in existence to achieve wonderful results. Many of the finest actors of the last 100 years (like Gregory Peck and Rober Duvall, to name a couple) were trained by Sanford Meisner who employs an actor's most wonderful asset to achieve emotional preparation.
That asset being your Imagination