PT Jedi and sex in the PT

In addition to hearing about the Sith, I was interested in the whole celibacy thing. Seems like a grey area. I think that the vast majority of Jedi would go crazy when they hit their teens and I wonder if they have to take an official vow of celibacy, or are just discouraged.

Also, does Lucas have anything to say about this?

 

Yes - they're allowed as long as they don't get attached. Interview. Do a search and you'll find previous threads on this.

 

They can have relations with people but not to the point of becoming possessive.

There are interviews with Lucas where he discusses it more thoroughly.

 

Jedi are allowed to have sex, but as long as the relationship does not "become an attachment."

This raises quite a couple ethical questions, including:

1.) What if the Jedi is a woman, who becomes pregnant? Is she forced to give up custody of the child to the father's family, give it up for adoption, or are they taken in by the Jedi for training and never again seen by the parents? Moreover, is the mother otherwise forced to abort the baby if none of these options are taken, upon threat of expulsion?

2.) Is this an endorsement of promiscuity? Sex between people who genuinely care about each other naturally creates an attachment. For good or ill, it gives the consummation meaning. By adding the stipulation that one must be unattached to have sex while being a Jedi, does that mean that Jedi have one-night stands, or otherwise employ the services of prostitutes, relations which they care little about, with people they care little about?

 

Exactly. I'm no prude, but the philosophy does seem really b***-ackwards.

I would be curious as to how the Jedi resolved the issues that FalorWindrider mentioned.

 

I saw this thread title, and the first thing I thought was "Aayla Secura". Sorry.

 

Fair enough.

 

Why stop at Aayla? The rule says "No exceptions."

 

Which proves that this is indeed a PT Jedi philosophy.

In all seriousness, Lucas's "sex without attachments" was one of the stranger clarifications he's made. I'm going to have to disregard it, in favor of the more sensible "no nookie for demigods" rule.

 

Well, seeing as how he said it, it's still valid. Remember, this is a series where a planet routinely elects underage girls as monarchs. It's become rather expected for Lucas to make crap up that is distinctly disconnected from any form of logic.

And frankly, if the Jedi Order is actively attempting to cut off all Jedi Knights who have sexual relations, at the expense of all other concerns, they deserved to be wiped out due to lack of pragmatism. In fact, a whole lot in the PT could have been avoided if characters put reason before honor or tradition.

Also, face it, a cast full of celibate characters is bone-crushingly boring. Next to war, love, for good or ill, is one of storytelling's most central themes, across cultures.

 

Consider yourself signatured.

 

Its really not that illogical. I assume you're going after the "elect" part rather than the "underage girls as monarchs" bit here (though I dont know what defines "underage" in this scenario, especially when an alien culture is being discussed). However a young monarch is not unrealistic (in history, many have done well) and an elected monarch of such an age is hardly illogical either. One of five or six, yeah I'd probably give you that. One of fourteen? Not so much. But regardless, its an alien culture. You're contrasting it with our own world which is a tad unfair. On Naboo, in their culture, one might be considered an adult, or at least to be of an adult maturity by the time they reach say 12. In my country it would not have been strange a mere hundred or so years ago for a 12 year old to be treated as an adult and sent out to work like one.

Its worth considering that the Naboo may well treat their young as more intuitive, idealistic, empathetic and free from corruption, to name just a few things which they might consider key factors for any leader. The old adage "if you're good enough, you're old enough" could apply. For me, Padme is both believable as a 14 year old leader and good at what she does to boot. With both those boxes checked, its really not hard to swallow that she would have been nominated for such a role, nor would it be an illogical nomination at that. On paper, maybe. But look at who she is and what actually happens. She isn't perfect, no. She allows herself to be corrupted by her elder Senator as we know. But her stern, idealistic and impulsive nature actually sees her accrue a victory in her darkest hour and take a stance many of an elder and apparently more wisened position (such as the Jedi around her at the time) actually advise against.

Ask yourself this - is it really more believable that a country such as the US would elect George W Bush than it is that a planet like Naboo would elect Padme Amidala? Try logically explaining that one to any alien watching a movie about our culture. Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction.

Many of the things we do as human beings rely on honour and tradition as opposed to any real reason or logic. I'm not saying I agree with these things. But its not unrealistic.

 

Mace is known to a lot of women as another name, Shaft.

 

Okay, home from work I have time to elaborate on my admittedly short answer.

*IF* you are one of the posters who agree with a more "eastern" definition of attachment as an inability to let go if/when necessary, then Jedi are allowed relationships - friendships and perhaps more. In such a view, one might have a consensual one night stand or an ongoing relationship.

*IF* you follow the more common view that attachment is any type of caring, you will believe that GL "endorsed" promiscuity and one night stands.

I've been persuaded to the first view, which seems far more in line with what I imagine the Order is or should be.

Regardless of which "if" you accept, many in today's society seem to think a "friends with benefit" arrangement is perfectly morally acceptable, and that might be a better way to think of the Jedi in regard to this topic, especially if you are a bit in the middle or leaning to the more conventional western view of "morality."

I certainly do not see GL endorsing "love 'em and leave 'em one night stands."

 

I'm not overly familiar with the eastern religions. That being said, I don't judge people who have "friends with benefits" relationships, but at the same time, it still seems backwards for the Jedi to endorse those but condemn real romantic relationships.

On Padme the 14-year-old Queen: d_arblay is correct, the Naboo use maturity as opposed to chronological age to determine adulthood.

 

I'm far from knowledgeable on "eastern philosophies" but as I've heard it explained, should the Order take "that view" it does not condemn romantic relationships, at least in theory.

IMHO Anakin was unable to "detach from Padme" - he would rather, it appears, allow himself to be persuaded that it was better to destroy the Jedi Order and "turn" rather than risk Padme's life. This is not the thread to debate that, but in general I would agree that Anakin's love was obsessive and possessive ( IMHO and at least towards the end).

Perhaps another Jedi would have been able to have a romantic love and yet be able to detach from that should the need arise - a possible example, saving some group (the many) rather than his/her love (the one) when a horrible choice had to be made. We know Anakin would always choose Padme.

Now, another debatable point is if in practice the Order moved away from that view and "reinterpreted" the no attachment to mean an avoidance of romantic love.

I think there's several related points in such a discussion: what did the Jedi mean (once) and what did the Jedi believe (at the time of the PT) and all that that entails.

 

I actually agree with you about Anakin and Padme, at least to a point. He would always choose her above the good of the group/galaxy/etc., and that was the problem--not, IMO, the fact that he loved her. Another case in point on Anakin if you follow TCW series: in season 2, he opened the holocron containing data on the galaxy's Force-sensitive children, exposing the data to Cad Bane and Sidious, in order to save Ahsoka's life. All was well that ended well there, because he and Ahsoka went on to save the children (along with Obi-Wan and Mace) but Anakin was not going to just let Ahsoka die. I'm not sure what other Jedi might have done in that situation--I have a hard time condemning Anakin for that choice given its rock-and-hard-place nature, but then again, the old Jedi Order would have booted me pretty quickly.

My issue with the "no attachments" rule, as I've mentioned before, is this: why could the Jedi not be taught to let go of their attachments when necessary and always put the good of the galaxy ahead of the good of an individual, rather than be told that they cannot have romantic or familial relationships at all? It might not have worked on Anakin, but such a teaching would make more sense.

 

I fully endorse love them and leave them one night stands.

 

Oh, I quite agree the issue with Anakin was not "love" but "how he loved."

As to the Ahsoka thing - that would be a hard call. I think Qui-Gon might have made the same choice - save the one you can when you can - who may be harmed in the future is unknown and in the future.

But when one focuses on the present to the exclusion of the future - bad things can happen. Key word: can.

And of course, it turned out well for Anakin & Ahsoka in that case, so in hindsight, he did the right thing.

If we saw the future, perhaps some of the time that philosophy would be right and some of the time wrong.

Now, as to why the Jedi didn't allow Anakin to love:

Did the Order actually forbid that or did Obi-Wan believe that and so inform Anakin?

Had the Order drifted away from that view of love over the centuries and the concept of "non-attached love" get twisted? Once, we are to believe, Jedi were allowed to get married.

If you want to, ah, "argue," should the Order have taught Jedi how to detach when necessary - I'm with you.

It seems most likely they did not, but all we really know is that Obi-Wan and Anakin both believed one on one romantic love was forbidden. And it probably was.

 

I'm currently reading Clone Wars: No Prisoners; I just started it so I'm not sure of everything it says about this issue, but I do know that Anakin meets a sect of Jedi who are allowed to marry. I'm interested to see how these Jedi will explain the allowance of romantic relationships to Anakin; I haven't read that far yet.

Also, Ki-Adi-Mundi was allowed to have multiple wives and children because his species was dying out, so they made exceptions. Maybe Ki-Adi wasn't "attached" to his wife or kids though.

It does seem possible that the "no attachment" rule got twisted. I haven't paid much attention to pre-Old Republic EU, waiting for FalorWindrider or someone else more familiar with it to post, but I do wonder if Jedi were allowed to marry at one time. Without further explanation, though, it does seem that some Jedi Master or Masters decided to take the "easy way out": it's way too "hard" to teach attached people to put the group before the individual, so we're just going to forbid "attachments"/certain relationships altogether.

(And poor Obi-Wan. No Siri, no Taria, no Satine. Although I found Anakin's reaction amusing when Obi-Wan told him that he and Taria had gone from being lovers to being friends. Paraphrasing: "You're actually OK with that? Damn." )

 

Im going to refrain from getting to into this discussion because I really dont want to bash Lucas' view too harshly. There have been monks who have sworn oaths of celibabcy, etc. But Lucas' idea of sexual relations without the relations part is a bit disturbing.

Jedi Knights: Force Gigalos??

But maybe that's also a point of Lucas'? The Order had become so damn weird they couldn't help but be destroyed and destroy themselves.

Maybe Luke learned the lesson? I don't know.

 

There are exceptions. The Cereans are one because of their low birth rate. Corellian Jedi seem to be another group. From what I've read, their family-centric culture was to some degree respected by the Jedi to some degree, in a sort of a syncretism of sorts. They started families and thus Force-sensitive dynasties, wore Corellia-specific garb, and largely inhabited their home sector. This makes sense, for I don't think Corellia, being a haughty and prideful world, would allow the Jedi to operate on their planet if it meant their culture would be suppressed. But these are exceptions, rather than rules. However, even in the prequel era, there are no mention, to my knowledge, of members being expelled for procreation. Kam Solusar was the result of such a union and his father was simply reprimanded (and considering every good Jedi Knight has at least one reprimand on their record, including Obi-Wan, this is small stuff).

The sect you mention is the sect of Djinn Altis, a schismatic group of Gray Jedi who don't directly follow the dictates of the Council. Their cordial relationship with the Order during the war indicates that some of the schism broke down - they needed Jedi, after all. This is what makes me think that, during the war, the Jedi had less concern over the marriage rule (thus Anakin was just being paranoid) than in peace time, because instead of being able to nitpick about theology, they were desperate for new generals and commanders.

In pre-New Sith Wars Jedi tradition, love and marriage, or even personal wealth, wasn't discouraged. Lucien Draay had a manor on Coruscant, there were several Jedi who were married, and children of Jedi are around. Moreover, most of these relationships were positive in nature. Even Jolee Bindo's tragic marriage failed not because of love, but because his wife joined the Sith of her own accord, with no bearing on his decision. In fact, he refused her, and even after that, continued believing love was worth it. After the New Sith Wars, I think the Jedi got really scared, and instead of using the Wars as a learning experience to become stronger and more dynamic, they became dangerously conservative and stagnant as a tepid pool. I think the worst thing Yoda could have done was remain on the Council for as long as he did. His mentality and perspective had not changed in hundreds of years. The Jedi of 19 BBY were still thinking exactly the same way as Jedi of 1000 BBY.

 

Well said! I agree.

 

At the end of the day though, its not mentioned in the film. So its really not an issue. Its ambiguity, as with many things in these movies, is likely deliberate. Its whichever works for you I suppose.

 

Good info--thanks. And on the last part, Yoda essentially admitted as much at the end of ROTS, I think it was d_arblay who provided the quote before. And his training methods did change with the OT. Yes, Luke was still taught to put the