PT Why is the Jedi not being a celibate organization a problem?

We were probably misdirected in different ways.

For me, I was all about how Anakin must be like Link from the Legend of Zelda or (later on) Harry Potter. So, you know, the hero with a destiny to fulfill -- nice predictable story of good triumphing over evil with no twists and turns. Nope.

I'm guessing that's not exactly what you mean though, Tosche?

 

It was...but I'd go further and say that the 'cleverness' of the misdirection that is the prophecy all hinges on a 1-6 viewing order (and to go with it, people who never saw the OT first). But even then, with someone who say never saw the OT and goes in seeing it in 1-6 order, the prophecy kind of gives away the ending in advance.

 

Tell that to the Kardashians.

 

Tell them…what exactly? Consenting sexual activity by sane/rational adults is in no way immoral or corrupt.

The Jedi going out and engaging in casual sex wouldn't make them less effective in their duties. Can sex be adventurous and exciting? Yes (though not always.) But then the same could be said of skiing. And we're hardly going to say the Jedi can't go skiing with their friends. Or that they're some kind of degenerates for having fun.

 

The Kardashians are the most immoral, corrupt people I've ever seen. They treat their men horribly and they have sex with other people while they're still married. I don't want the Jedi to be like those whores.

 

Seriously? The freaking Kardashians not…you know…ISIS/Daesh? Or Assad? Or…you know…brutal oppressive dictators?

Moreover, what in the world does this have to do with the Jedi or casual sex. The issue here is adultery. But if you have no significant other and aren't married, there's no betrayal involved. Again -- the Jedi don't get married, they just have casual sex. They're not breaking a vow to another person.

Edit: Seriously I don't even know why I'm arguing with you at this point. Our world views are so different.

 

Something tells me you're an MRA...

 

Just hold on there. Why (as is suggested) has the challenge to that rule now resolved to a change in the way the Jedi deal with it...after a thousand years (at least)? Because....somehow over those previous thousand years (or so) has there never been an instance where a Jedi would have an attachment which he would attempt to keep secret that an outsider could use against him?

If you then say...well, it was Anakin's particular circumstance that was the problem then......why would the Jedi change their stance on the rule? The problem was with Anakin who likely should not have been trained, so the rest of the training ...there's no need to change that. If attachment is bad, to be avoided - to the point of requiring a rule against it then....that still stands. The problem was simply that Anakin couldn't cope with it. It was a singular problem with Anakin in other words and not the rule itself.

I am aware of how the novel deals with it....but in the movies Obi-Wan feels free to exhort his attachment (love) for Anakin. In fact that scene is meant to get to the heart of the emotion that Obi-Wan is having to deal with....it isn't a denouncement of Obi-Wan's character and ability to be a Jedi. Which suggests to me that Lucas defined 'attachment' in terms of marriage. The scene where Anakin demands that they put the ship down in order to rescue Padmé can be juxta-positioned against; Anakin's refusing to leave Obi-Wan when his ship is damaged (ROTS), refusing to leave Obi-Wan on the Invisible Hand (ROTS), stopping Dooku from slicing Obi-Wan in half (AOTC), Obi-Wan cradling his mentor Qui-Gon (TPM) or declaring his brotherly love for Anakin (ROTS). None of those are implied as being negative. The only negative attachment is, as defined by Lucas, marriage.

Right...I've said this before, but...

I've watched this and it makes no sense. Yoda has an opportunity to stop Sidious or save the Chosen One.....who's purpose is to...stop Sidious??! It can't just be me who sees how ludicrous that proposition is?

"No...I want stop you Sidious, though I could. I will save the Chosen One so that he can stop you. Hahahaha...I win"

Just...what?!


And....who does he pass the test with?Who are these all-knowing, all-seeing beings? This whole storyline is, frankly, awful. I mean its worse than that but, within the framework of this forum that's really as far as I can go. It's meaningless, rambling, disjointed, philosophically shallow (empty) guph. I've read stuff by ten year olds that operates on a higher level.... Ok, that's my opinion but....I hold that opinion very strongly.

So, in the films...from what we are shown in the films....what sense does the rule make (when it narrows the definition of attachment to marriage), or that it is only challenged now (yesterday-ism) after a thousand years or a thousand generations such that the Jedi will change their approach?

 

Yes..it is odd. The idea can only work on the basis of there being a victim and a perpetrator...which kinda misses the point of consensual.

And...if anybody thinks that the Kardashians are the most corrupt and immoral people....you have a big wide world out there to be truly horrified by..


Those 'Jezebels' eh...?

 

Just to add that I don't see Jedi having sex the same way I don't see them doing other recreational activities. They may not be forbidden to do it, but it's just not part of who they are and by choice they ignore them.

"Adventure. Excitement. A Jedi craves not these things."

Which is true.

 

On a mission and on purpose. Just like Qui-Gon gambled in TPM.

Neither do I.

Oh, I do think Jedi have fun. But there's a difference between having fun and looking for it.

 

How does that work?

It's not. That's my point.

 

I guess there's really no point in going on about this. Lucas makes an off the cuff remark about the Jedi not needing to be celibate and it spirals out of control. Now instead of self sacrificing monks, they're drinkers, gamblers and having casual sex like the world was ending tomorrow. Chances are Lucas will never mention it again. And even bigger chance that no film or tv series will deal with PT Jedi sex lives, since SW isn't "that kinda movie" to begin with.

It's better relegated to "Head Canon" at this point. I'm going to continue to believe that the same Yoda that denounced Luke as wanting "Adventure" and "excitement" and professing that the Jedi "Must have the deepest commitment...the most serious mind" is not going to advocate random hook ups for Jedi. There's no evidence to the contrary. And until there is, it continues to be a non issue. But if you want to think the Jedi had some seedy relations within the order,that's your right I guess. As my old man says "Whatever floats your boat."

 

I'd argue that the OT largely repudiates the idea that Jedi should remain without emotional attachments.

In ESB, Yoda tries to convince Luke to ignore the fact that his froends are in need, fearing such attachment is being used as bait to pull him to the Dark Side. But in fact, Luke resists the Dark Side, and it is his attachment to Leia that saves him while hanging below Bespin. In ROTJ, it is Luke attachment to his father, and more importantly, his father's attachment to him that allows Vader to repudiate the Dark Side, and die as Anakin Skywalker. Ultimaly, attachment... Love, in fact, defeats Sidious.

At least part of the story in the PT, IMO, Iis about what the Jedi got wrong.

 

Contradictory message(s) aside, it's probably just that Lucas didn't think too deeply about the whole matter.

 

Not to pull him to the dark side, but his attachment to his friends were exploited by his enemies which is one of the reasons for why the Jedi train themselves to avoid them and not act on them. Another reason, which is connected, is that attachment clouds the judgement. Luke make a rational decision when he rushed to Bespin.

In the end, the Jedi way is proven correct. Luke doesn't save his friends. The opposite happens, his friends ended up saving him.

It's Luke's unconditional love / compassion for his father that bring Anakin back from the Vader persona and make him destroy Sidious. It's not passion nor attachment.

No, it isn't. Their ways have a reason and are proven to be right more than once throughout both trilogies.

More like people are taking the quote out of context. Lucas just said they aren't celibate. Not being forbidden to have sex doesn't mean they have sex or go looking for it.

 

Exactly. It's downright laughable the lengths some have tried to stretch that quote in justifying their odd presupposition.

 

Eh, I'm pretty sure the Jedi's relationship with the Force could easily override their sex drive. I don't see any reason the Jedi would see sex in the Order as a necessary or even good thing. Sure, they need Force-sensitives to train, but they've never been shown to have trained babies born from within their ranks. They always find them elsewhere.

As for casual sex, if it doesn't affect you at all, then THAT worries me. Is deciding to use another person (even if it's mutual) to satisfy an urge really an admirable thing? This sounds more archaic to me than saving sex for someone you care about. The fact is, even if it's a friend, even if everything you do is agreed upon and enjoyed by both - it's still using a person to scratch an itch. Everything has effects that no one can possibly foresee. Every intimate act has emotional and spiritual ramifications. To dismiss any kind of sex as "casual" is short-sighted to say the least.

 

Jedi with a TARDIS Force-sensitives happen naturally, a Jedi doesn't need to procreate for them to appear (the Force is in everyone).

 

Yeah, but to suggest sex is something that should be used in the proper context (a loving, monogamous relationship.) and not for selfish "itch scratching" purposes, means you're forcing the Jedi to act like uptight 1950's fundamentalist Christians.

 

There's nothing wrong with viewing sex as something you keep in a loving, monogamous relationship…for yourself.

It's when you try to judge people or enforce your own view of sex on others that it becomes a problem.

If you believe that sex is something special to be shared only with people you love and whom you're committed to, that's great. There's nothing wrong with that and you should be free to live your life as you see fit.

But there's also nothing wrong with someone who sees sex as a fun, pleasurable activity and has no issue engaging in it casually.

Too often, people in the latter group are called "sluts" "whores" and "degenerates" by people in the former group even though their actions are not hurting anyone. Nor should people who only want to have sex in a relationship be called fundamentalist Christians -- no one should be pressured into sex.

The key point is simply to live and let live and not impose our views of sex on others.