Saga Could the Jedi Cause an Imbalance in the Force?

No, but sex can lead to attachment. (Although my personal beliefs are that sex doesnt happen until after attachment, but thats a different matter altogether.) And its that possibility along with the inferred condoning of that action by the Order that I find hypocritical.

Alexrd Hmm.. why dont you show me yours and I'll show you mine?

If as you say "just because it's not forbidden doesn't mean they do it" then the opposite is also a possibility. (Schroedinger's Cat) In that regard and my comments to anakinfansince1983 above, I dont see how condoning such behaviour can be congruent with the overall ethos of the Jedi Order.

 

Again, the burden of proof is on you.

 

Why? What makes your position more legally grounded that the burden of proof lies on me? A rather arrogant position to come from imo.

anakinfansince1983 And that is where I cant agree. Allowing sex isn't just allowing sex, its opening the door for what may come along after.

I wonder how a cloistered individual who was taken from their parents at one year of age, trained in the ways of the Jedi etc etc etc woudl react when their hormones kick into gear they are told "hey if you feel the need, friends with benefits is fine but don't form attachments now." Can you honestly tell me that there would be no chance of someone slipping down that slippery slope of attachment?

Also, regardless of what people know, how people feel is not something they can control. For every action there is an equal and positive/negative reaction. Disregarding the possible (even if improbable) consequences of such action is hypocritical imo. (But then that is only my opinion.)

 

To put this point into context. Lucas responded to a question about the apparent celibacy of the Jedi Order, his point being that the Jedi rules were in relation to avoiding attachment not with regards to celibacy per sé. In other words his response was to highlight that the Jedi injunction against marriage is meaningful in the context of not making emotional attachment (and in fact rejecting the notion that it was alike a dogmatic 'Catholic' celibacy).

In other words any imagined context of what sexual activities the Jedi could or did partake is irrelevant, what matters is that the rule is, and is intended to be seen as, applied and relevant only in as much as it relates to attachment.

 

And how does that change anything that has been said? Attachment is prohibited but anything up to that point is fair game?

 

Not even a point. That's what ought to have changed. That's what irrelevant means. The "anything else" you reference here is of absolutely no importance to the question at hand, and has no connection with what Lucas was saying - which was simply to highlight that what is important in terms of the Jedi ban on marriage is that it is to do with attachment.

 

There is a big difference between sex and attachment. I don't know how sexually active you guys are but you don't literally fall in love and want permanent posession of someone because you had sex with them. That's not how sex works. In fact immediately after I bust a nut I want nothing to do with the woman.

 

anakinfansince1983 I just can't see the difference between a Jedi being required to show control in regards to attachments to the point where it is completely forbidden and not being required to show control in terms of sexual impulses.

only one kenobi That may be the case in terms of GL, but then again he does make sweeping statements in many things without giving much detail on what could be related matters. In terms of the above conversation, I can't seperate one from the other. Sex, attachment, marriage imo are all related to some degree, and as such, imo you cant deny one without denying the other.

The Supreme Chancellor

And how does whether one being sexually active have any bearing whatsoever on this dicussion?

That may well be your feelings on the matter but is that the Jedi way? Is that how a Jedi would view sex? A release? Sounds a tad self-gratifying to me, bordering on Sith.

As far as I'm concerned attachment and sex are very related. You can't have one without the other. (But again, I will emphasize, that is my view only.)

 

Dude. Are you serious? The more experience you have in something the mor relevant your opinion. You wouldn't go to a Dentist for an opinion on your brain surgery, the same way you wouldn't go to virgin for sex tips.

Yes, sex is a literal releif. Just like urinating, defacating and sleeping. Are those Sith methods as well?

Correct. That is your view only. Your very flawed veiw. Put two dogs in a room together, let them have sex, and then see how attached they get to each other. Med edit: Not really relevant or appropriate.

 

...and associate it with commitment, love and attachment.

Preach!

 

I aint no dog.

A dog will eat its own vomit though. Do you imitate a dog in that area too?

Just because my view doesn't make your view more valid and mine flawed. Just because you've had x*100 sexual partners and me x*<100 partners does not make you more knowledgable in the subject than me. It may make you bigger X than me but not more knowledgeable. Check your jock attitude at the door before slinging baseless aspersions.

You're correct in one thing though, I wouldn't go to a dentist for opinion on brain surgery. But should I need guidance in how to be a "dawg" I know where to come.

anakinfansince1983 As said earlier in this thread, a personal discussion on morality is probably best left off this forum, sadly it looks as if I failed to follow my own counsel and look where its ended.

How one chooses to view sexual activity etc is obviously a personal one and really not for anyone to judge on a SW forum.

I just find it hard to marry possible sexual promiscuity with the tenets of a "paladinesque" Jedi Order. But again that is my view.

 

No need for this I think. Darth Maaliss made clear (emphasised) that this was only their view, I'm sure we're not here to make judgements upon perceptions of others' beliefs and lifestyles.

 

You're an animal bud. You're a mammal. In the grand scheme of the universe you're closely related to dogs.

It definitely does. If I have done something more than you, I am more experienced, and my opinion matters more. You can test the it yourself! Go apply for a job as a marketing consultant and tell them you have a huge background in gardening! They might not value your opinion on their marketing

My jock attitude? Dude I'm talking to you on a SW forum I promise I'm not gonna give you a wedgie and take your lunch money.

I'm all for respecting opinions, but some things are facts, and some aren't, and we need to acknowledge that insteadof accepting made-up opinions on the same ground as fact.

Fact: ESB is a SW film.
Opinion: ESB is the best SW film.

Fact: Sex is a natural mammilian instinct that relieves the urge to procreate/orgasm.
Opinion: Sex leads to attachment.

 

That was what I was trying to say. It's not relevant. Lucas was responding to a question and highlighting that the Jedi objection to marriage should be seen in the context of the concept of attachment. That in response to the suggestion that the Jedi were celibate (and one should understand that context. The reason celibacy is unculcated in Catholic Christianity is because all sex is sinful, whether within marriage/relationship or not - and hence priests are banned from marriage because of sex (original sin) - so that Lucas was emphasising that it is not sex that is forbidden, but that the whole context of the story is to be seen within the structure of attachment)

In other words there is no necessity to consider that the Jedi are promiscuous or not. It is irrelevant. It isn't the point.

 

Difference being The Supreme Chancellor any ****er can ****. It doesn't take a Phd to do it. 1000+ partners does not a great lover make, hence regardless of how experienced you think you may be your experience may well be worth diddly in advising another if all you do is last a few seconds then roll over and snore.

So again More times=/=Better or more experienced

only one kenobi

Fair enough. Interesting with regards to the Catholic Chruch in that thier reason for celibacy is based on a misconception about the original sin. It wasn't sex. Sex isn't a sin.

The problem with GL's comments on attachment and celibacy however (when discussed at length on a forum like this) is that inevitably the question is going to be asked - How do the Jedi deal with sex? Yes, (regardless of any personal morality) sex =/= attachment, but there is some emotion involved. How do the Jedi balance that with their tenets?

 

To answer the original question: YES I believe that the Jedi were causing an imbalance in the Force.

Number One: They tied themselves too tightly to one government and over time started to answer to some politicians beck and call.

Number Two: They no longer cared about the Will of the Force only the Code.

Number Three: They cut themselves off from their emotions so they no longer had empathy. Just because you can sense someone's emotions doesn't immediately give you understanding.

Number Four: I HEARD that for some time the Jedi Council was aware of the growing darkness but instead of doing something about it they decided (years before TPM) that they would just wait until the Chosen One appeared and they would let the Chosen One handle it.

Number Five: Everyone depended on the Jedi to protect them. This is alluded to in AotC when Mace tells Palpatine if it comes to war that there aren't enough Jedi to protect the Republic and that they are 'keepers of the peace not soldiers'

For some reason I remember reading somewhere that George said that the Dark Side figuratively belonged between the stars and other dark places.

 

The second 'fact' is not as clear cut as you would have it. Within mammalian ecologies there are various strategies by which procreational rights are established. Some animals (ourselves included) also utilise sex as a social function. However what constitutes 'right' behaviour or 'flawed' behaviour is opinion. There are all sorts of factors within such a discussion (for example, what constitutes consent - if someone feels pressured in some way to conform to societal norms can it truly be consenting? If one party feels they are entering into a different form of relationship have they consented? What if there is a power differential, can that be seen as wholly consenting?)

Your own position is as much opinion as anyone else's.

 

That is literally the definition of experience. More tours = More experienced soldier. More surgeries = More experienced surgeon. More sex = More experienced lover.
And while experience doesn't always = better, it does most of the time.

 

No that's a fact. You should get a dictionary or a biology textbook or soemthing. Might clear up this debate.

 

That my friend is a phallusy (pun intended).

Okay The Supreme Chancellor lets agree to disagree on our personal opinions regarding morality.

Can I ask though, from a Jedi Order point of view. @Anakinfansnce1983 has already said that it isn't the Jedi's problem if another forms an attachment to a Jedi inadvertantly through sexual contact. And I can see what she means by that, but how can that attitude sync with the Jedi tenets of "compassion and empathy"?

 

1. You're right.
2. Qui-Gon believed the will of the Force brought him to Anakin. Yoda exiles himself after losing to Palpatine, seemingly accepting that the Force has shifted to the dark side.
3. Qui-Gon empathizes enough with Shmi to try and free her despite the fact that he wanted Anakin, not her. Yoda and Obi-Wan show a great deal of emotion at the temple.
4. Waiting for the Chosen One echoes that they trusted in the Will of the Force. There was little they could do about the growing darkness as they were unaware that the Sith still existed.
5. Not everyone, most systems had private militias, we see the Trade Federation has their own military, as well as the other systems that ally with Dooku. What the Republic did not have was a government military, which it felt it didn't need because there hadn't been an outside threat to the Republic since the Sith had been destroyed 1000 years prior.

Googe "experience" and you'll find out that you've been using term "fallacy" incorrectly

But yeah, it's not a Jedi's fault is someone falls in love with them. Padme fell in love with Anakin, they had never had sex at that point. A person that has thier life saved by a Jedi could also fall in love with them, a friend of someone the Jedi killed (in self defense) could have thier life destroyed or hate the Jedi for it.

Sex in itself is just an action. Attachment is a separate issue.

 

If you read what I wrote I made no reference to it being false, I pointed out that it was not as clear cut as you assert. In some species consent is not necessarily a function of those strategies. Hey...we're all mammals, right? Would that be ok? That's a fact; that it is a fact has no efficacy in whether one considers it acceptable within the context of human social relations - that is opinion. Do you see the difference yet?