Saga Star Wars and sexuality

Then why did you get involved in the first place?

 

STOP IT. PLEASE
I don't know, I don't care. I just want to GET OUT OF THIS THREAD at this point. PLEASE. STOP.

 

The simple thing to do is just to ignore the notifications.

 

OK, Seagoat has made a perfectly reasonable request not to be quoted or tagged in this thread - could other users please respect this request.

 

I'm an ace, I disagree. Of course it's not a shameful thing, but the media and popular psychology have made a lot people believe that it's a driving force of the universe or something. Nah. A lot of us are simply driven by enthusiasm and emotional connection on a higher level, depending on the matter in question. And I'm pretty sure that a lot of sexual people do not feel that sex is the main force driving them. As somebody said on the first page, Freudian (and, to some extent, Jungian stuff, e.g. that notorious fear of the feminine thing) psychology is a thing of past. If we were to apply that stuff on everything, Dagobah would be a very sexy place. Doesn't make sense, huh?

And funny enough, I don't see anything in the OT as sexual (including the slave outfit, which is prude compared to today's TV series that would not even have a plot if there wasn't sex), while there are people who would see lines such as "Take her, take her!" or "Hey, point that someplace else!" as innuendos.

Also, respect the person who feels triggered!

 

I never said it was the "main" thing driving people (though maybe for some), but it is definitely an undercurrent in everyday life, whether we're fully aware of it or not. Heck, we all only exist because of sex. We wouldn't be here having this conversation without it. And yes, it absolutely can (and does) influence decision making, behavior, or can even be a source of motivation. Is it always? Ha ha, unless we're all characters in an '80s teen comedy, then no, of course not always. But it's there. Are we sometimes "simply driven by enthusiasm and emotional connection on a higher level"? Absolutely, I would never suggest otherwise.

But sometimes, it's about sex. I'm sorry, but it's true. It influences relationships (sometimes creating more intimacy and making them stronger, or, sometimes, regretfully, turning them into something weird and painfully awkward). And sure, sometimes it's just "release". Even if there's no actual sex, just the presence of a sexual attraction will influence how you interact with or feel around someone. (Your'e telling me there's no behavior modification between hanging out with that guy you "love like a brother" and hanging out with the guy you wanna sleep with? Come on--there's always a difference. Even if it's as simple as: one you fart around, one you don't.) It can create tension, fuel jealousy….really, man, I'm sorry, but it's out there. And it's all over the place.

The whole "Freudian" thing was no where near where I was going with my argument. Not even remotely. I don't buy into that stuff either (But incidentally, in the SW movies you could find a *ton* stuff like that if you wanted: the Death Star trench, X/Y wings, Luke's "ejaculation" of the torpedo missile, the original sarlaac pit in ROTJ…it's almost too easy!) But again, that was no where near my point. But it is fun to point that stuff out, just for giggles.

No, I'm just saying human sexuality is a big part of what, well, makes us human. And, again, to take that out of the equation completely would be to deprive our characters of something important. That's why I was disagreeing with the whole premise of "sex does not exist" in SW.

Okay, let me just ask you a simple question. Let's say the previous poster got their wish and sex suddenly did not exist in GFFA. Then what's the issue with the OT "love triangle"? I mean, what does it matter? How would Leia's relationship with Han be any different than her relationship to Luke? (Try and forget the sibling thing for a moment, I'm trying to make a point). She clearly loves them both. She feels "emotionally close" to both. What would distinguish them? After all, in the movies, Han's not worried that she loves Luke. No, he's worried that she loves Luke in that way. But if there's no sex, then that way really doesn't exist anymore. Suddenly everything kinda equalizes and there's really no (big) difference between the dynamics. (Does that mean Han and Leia's relationship is "all about sex/sexual attraction"? Of course not! But it's definitely a key ingredient, don't kid yourself).

Heck, you take sex out of the equation than Han and Leia probably wouldn't have fought nearly as much in ESB, either. And that's no fun. It's called "sexual tension" for a reason.

Anyway, welcome to the Boards, Ewok Poet. I hope I didn't scare you off with my crazy sex ramblings. And excuse the crudity of this post, it's very late…and I didn't have time to paint it, or build it to scale….

 

Thank you. And no, you didn't scare me. I'm just used to Invision and I still need to figure out how XenForo's notifications work as they appear to be quite sporadic.

I knew about Sarlacc pit / vagina dentata analogy and I find that quite bizarre. One would have to be influenced by media a lot in order to see such analogies.

Other than that, well, your signature quote says it all and you're probably the type to see mine as a sexual reference and not as a funny play on my year of birth/year of ROTJ release, so we can agree to disagree.

 

Yanksfan

I think Ewok Poet was just objecting to your contention that "human sexuality is a big part of what makes us human" because lack of sexual desire does not make one less human (I get that you weren't trying to imply that, but I do think that it gets a bit tiring to read about how much of a motivator sex is when you can't identify with that feeling yourself). Given that Ewok Poet identified as ace/asexual I can see where it'd be important to make clear that sex isn't a big driver for everyone. For a lot of people (even the vast majority) this may be the case, but some people just aren't all that driven or interested by sex.

Given Star Wars' universe, a lot of characters can actually be thought of as asexual if you'd prefer. Obi-Wan and Mace Windu, for example, never really show the slightest bit of interest in anyone in the films and I've seen some fans interpret them as asexual characters. Certainly, I don't think you can say that attraction ever really motivated their actions in canon.

Characters like Han, Leia, Luke, Anakin, and Padmé were most definitely motivated by their sexuality at various points in the story, but I don't think that's true of all the characters.

 

All of that, plus a bunch of unnecessary clichés they used.

Also, PiettsHat, props for the "even the vast majority part". Even if I wasn't un-driven like I am, I would still think that sex as a plot bunny is just a proof for lack of motivation on the writers' part and laziness.

Most of these characters are complex and it would not make sense to reduce them to one-dimensional current TV folk whose only motivator is lust.

Hope it makes more sense now.

 

Yanksfan , please correct me if I'm wrong...

But I thought the point being made was that sexuality is a significant driving force for the human race collectively and therefore affects us all to an extent, directly or indirectly, rather than that it's a major driving force for every individual.

 

In both trilogies, the "love" scenes and dialogue are written like a 4th grader who has just read Romeo and Juliet for the first time. George is not good at writing love stories. Further in Star Wars sexuality doesn't seem to be part of most characters' lives, and George certainly doesn't know how to write women characters very well.

There are only a handful of female characters to begin with... And the lesson of the PT seems to be that love gets you in trouble and is forbidden for good reason.

Other than Anakin->Padme, and the Luke-Leia-Han triangle, nobody seems to be interested in the opposite sex. The Star Wars universe seems to be very sexless and sterile.

* Oh, just remembered Kliegg Lars hooked up with Shmi....

Lucas often cites his influence by the Roman Empire, had he gone dark there was plenty of debauchery there he could have drawn from.

 

For some reason, Palpatine appears to be slightly homosexual. He never took a lover. I know he viewed relationships as weakness, but apparently he never even had sex. And since asexuals are so extremely rare, I think he was gay. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

 

He definitely could've been. Some say he had a love for Anakin's power and that made him homosexual.

 

Mod action: Merging with the 'SW & Sexuality' thread and editing OP for clarification.

 

1% (possibly more) among 7 000 000 000 people on Earth is not that rare. Imagine how un-rare it is their world.

 

The Master-Padawan (and Sith master-apprentice) relationships are very much like a marriage.

 

Personally, I always thought that Palpatine was largely asexual. As with Adolf Hitler, the vast majority of his sexual drive would have been redirected toward the single-minded pursuit of power. Of course, that didn't stop Hitler from having a relationship with Eva Braun.

And indeed, Palpatine's seduction of Anakin in the prequels can certainly be read as a courtship. In that respect it's very much like Dr. Pretorius's relationship with Victor Frankenstein in Bride of Frankenstein, where the sinister Pretorius coerces a reluctant Victor to resume his earlier experiments in forbidden science. The subtext in that case was all but text, the more so as Bride of Frankenstein's director James Whale was himself gay.

 

Isn't it possible that Lucas simply wasn't interested in telling that kind of story?

 

Right. For a brief second or two, Palpatine also looks to be very much enjoying the company of Sly Moore at the opera in ROTS. It's in the wide shot just as Anakin shows up: they're kinda leaning in to each other as if trading sweet nothings.

Not that it means much, but Ian McDiarmid is probably gay. At the time, there were also rumours floating around that Hayden Christensen was actually gay, or maybe bisexual.

Really doesn't matter much, though, really. Sexuality and gender are slightly amorphous constructs, anyway. More people probably thrill to more things than they let on; or often even realize (through repression, ignorance, a lack of exploration or fascination, etc).

 

Sorry for the double-post; but it seems I slightly ran out of time to squeeze this into the bottom of my last response.

A lot of interesting responses in here in general. So many bits to pick 'n' choose from!

Love all the perspectives. Truth in all of them, I think, for a topic as rich as this.

Just to grab at one recent set of remarks...

I don't think that's the lesson of the PT.

If anything, the PT seems to celebrate love as a form of what the Ancient Greeks called "divine madness".

If we look briefly at the prequel's middle: the classical imagery in AOTC, the beautiful love theme, the costumes, Anakin's chivalrous (if pent-up) pursuit of Padme, her embrace of her own vulnerability, the idyllic (if mournful) wedding scene, and the old-fashioned melodramatic motifs -- I think it's a celebration of love, not a condemnation. There's nothing (that I can see) that's vituperative about it.

On the other hand, there can be an artistic lamentation going on. I don't know if it's didactic, per se, but there is a hint of "this is what love gets you". Yet even that more critical or doleful aspect has to be nuanced against the idea that Anakin and Padme's union bears redemptive fruit. Yes, they cross certain lines, but their marriage helps bring down the old system and their children emerge as key players who help to bring about something new.

I think there is a tendency to imagine or fashion Lucas as some kind of nerdy asexual prude, but that's not really an honest portrait of the man. He has, at the very least, tangentially acknowledged the pursuit of girls, and the satisfaction of sexual urges, in his own youth. "American Graffiti" is about (or involves) esoteric mating rituals and derives from Lucas' youth. "THX-1138" shows its main character achieving sexual climax and has a sex scene at its centre; and it notably depicts a world where sexual congress is banned and which the main character resolves to escape from.

Star Wars is a different beast, but has Lucas' earlier films in its DNA. The taut bantering between the "big three" in the original movie is full of sexual tension (within the film and without) and there is sublimated sexual imagery and theme-ising in all six films. I'd contend that AOTC ramps up this sexological aspect of the series with a fresher (even poignant) erotic charge -- even if it's still sublimated to a large extent. Some stuff, though, like Anakin talking to Obi-Wan about how Padme didn't like him "watching" her while she slept, and then the two of them busting into her bedroom, with Anakin leaping onto her bed and drawing his lightsaber assuredly across her face, much to her sudden surprise (the astonishment of Padme being the clincher) -- well, I think it sounds about as dirty as it looks.

One further footnote is that Lucas contributed $100,000 ($50,000 personally; another $50,000 from the coffers of Lucasfilm) to the campaign to repeal California's notorious "Proposition 8" ban on same-sex marriage in 2008. This is a pretty decent, fair, open-minded man. Whether he's all that "driven" by sex or not (quotation marks because that's a very broad concept), he at least acknowledges sexuality in human life and its valid presence in modern democratic society, and the right for people to not be encumbered or deterred by regressive forces from pursuing their own happiness with whoever they choose.

You've got a bit more currency with the "writing" aspect. It's true that Star Wars is male-dominated and that Lucas arguably understands boyhood and male issues much more than the female animal. But again, in counterpoint to these charges, Lucas' film women are quite radical forces for proportionality and change, and in the case of Padme and Leia, are able to own their physical beauty and even wear their sexual prowess on their sleeves (though both middle films -- AOTC and TESB -- play up to certain stereotypes about female chasteness and propriety in some of their plot details and character mechanics). Amidala is, arguably, one of his best-developed characters, and it is interesting to note that much of the prequel trilogy actually revolves around her.

But then, of course, Lucas is only human -- a male human, who grew up in a particular time and place. His art is just as liable to be riddled with flaw and contradiction as anyone else's. It's just a question of...

a) How much do you like it?
b) How kind do you feel like being?

No true right or wrong.

 

That's "the lesson of the PT" only if you think love was what brought about Anakin's fall. I don't think it was. It was selfishness. That's demonstrated by how he chokes Padmé. His impulse in that moment revealed his true motivations --- he wanted to keep her so much that he would rather silence her forever than hear her condemn his choices and refuse to follow him down his chosen path. That is not love but greed. Possessiveness ("Don't you turn against me!"; "You will not take her from me!").

In that vein, Qui-Gon's observation, "He knows nothing of greed," is ironic foreshadowing.

 

It's an old chestnut, but if you truly love something you need to be prepared to set it free, or at least not feel the need to be attached to it to the point of ownership. Love wasn't Anakin's problem.

 

Then, there was also Theodor Morell and he smelled so divine...

 

There's a lot of sexual subtext within the Star Wars saga - Particularly AOTC and ROTS, where it doesn't take a genius to work out what happened once Anakin had married Padme and nor do you need it spelling out what happened AFTER the "hairbrush scene" but BEFORE the "nightmare scene" in ROTS - But suffice to say both Anakin and Padme were a married couple uniting after a long time apart, were in a state of (partial) undress and sharing a double bed...

You figure it out.

Of course sex isn't "in your face" in Star Wars but for sure it's there as a subtext.

PS. I've always pondered the subtectual meaning of the two scene's in AOTC where we go from Padme sitting on top of Anakin to a flying whale bursting out of the sea at Kamino...

 

That wasn't at all subtle; I think the sexual subtext there is pretty obvious