Can someone explain the whole Jedi marriage thing to me?

[Darth Fanboy]

Another bit of info, even Qui Gon Jinn had a brief brush with the Dark Side because he lost someone he had fallen in love with. So we have Qui-Gon, Obi Wan, and Anakin who all developed attachments, and all had brushes with the Dark Side. Qui-Gon heard his love's voice before delivering the killing blow to the being responsible, and Obi Wan held up at the last second. Anakin just didn't have the willpower to resist and had far less experience as a Jedi than either Qui Gon or Obi Wan.

[Tiriol]

Actually, by memory, the New Jedi Order had almost an unhealthy amount of students being influenced (and corrupted) by the dark side: Gantoris, Kyp Durron, Kueller, Brakiss, Desann, Rosh Penin... just to name a few. At least three of them were in peril due to their strong connections and attachements (Gantoris and the rest of the colonists; Kyp Durron and his brother Zed; Kueller/Dolph and his family back on his homeplanet).

Anakin Skywalker seemed rather well-adjusted child when one considers that he was raised as a slave and was aware that he could be blown up at any moment, should his owner decide to trigger the bomb inside him. He clearly had a very strong moral fibre and desire to help people. As to why he had become such an arrogant and hot-tempered person, we can point to his youth (he was still a teenager) and his close association with Palpatine, who had all the reasons in the world to feed the young Skywalker praise and words of compliments and glory. While we cannot deny the impact of the Jedi training (Master Yoda himself recognized that many Jedi, even the older and the more experienced ones, were suffering from arrogance and pride) on the shaping of Anakin, we must still remember that when the most important period of his life came about, he was very much still a teenager and unsure about himself and about the world around him; and that one of the best manipulators in the galactic history was shaping him in the background.

As to the Jedi frowning upon marriage, it has very much to do with the strong emotions connected with such powerful relationships: losing one's loved one can drive one to hate and anger and in a powerful Force-user that can result in the fall to the dark side. The dark side of the Force is not some devil figure of mythology, it is very real and very dangerous. As Obi-Wan Kenobi explained to Anakin's heir, Luke Skywalker, the Force obeys the Jedi's commands, but it also partially controls the Jedi's actions. So opening oneself to the dark side in order to tap into its power will also allow the dark side to influence and control the Force-user's actions. The Jedi took precautions against it in the case of strong relationships causing such temptation. They cannot be blamed for it (although their teachings also gave way to their doom, since they tried to cut themselves almost completely away from the range of emotions, which left them unprepared to deal with them and possibly also gave rise to their growing arrogance, since THEY could control their emotions and others couldn't).

[Elfdart]

Possibly a self imposed brain bug on Lucas's part. Just because the Force runs strong in the Skywalker family, it must run strong in all families that have a Force sensitive? Yeah. I mean, wouldn't the Jedi have at some point just bred Jedi children or encouraged mating if that was true? Or if it was indeed just genetic, why not just make an army of Jedi Clones that were exactly like the clones, except that they adhered to the Jedi Code, or even make completely individual children, just with Force sensativity and train them as they see fit, to replenish and keep numbers up.

How else would you explain the Jedi being reduced from a very large number to two? If it's a rare genetic defect and Jedi aren't allowed to breed then this has a remote chance of working. Otherwise you might as well try wiping out mosquitoes in Florida.

[Darth Hoth]

Actually, by memory, the New Jedi Order had almost an unhealthy amount of students being influenced (and corrupted) by the dark side: Gantoris, Kyp Durron, Kueller, Brakiss, Desann, Rosh Penin... just to name a few. At least three of them were in peril due to their strong connections and attachements (Gantoris and the rest of the colonists; Kyp Durron and his brother Zed; Kueller/Dolph and his family back on his homeplanet).

I am a little short on time right now, so I shall have to be brief and address the bulk of the replies later, but:

Gantoris: Coming from a traumatic background and directly influenced by ancient Sith spirit

Kyp Durron: See above

Kueller: Point; he went over the bend after seeing his parents crucified.

Brakiss: Dark Side agent sent to inflitrate the facility, so I doubt he would really count

Desann/Penin: Videogame characters the exact circumstances around whose fall I am not aware of, so I cannot comment on them; Wookiee claims Desann had a troubled past and was a sociopath already when recruited

In the first two cases, I doubt there would be much difference for other training models, given how directly they were manipulated (supposedly, at least Kyp was partially possessed, though how much of this is a post-facto construction/rationalisation for his xenocide on Carida might be called into doubt). Brakiss was, as noted, a spy who was nearly redeemed. So, out of these at least half are suspect cases. One would also note that Skywalker did not exactly obtain the cream of the manpower barrel when he recruited his students, given that nearly all of them were outcasts due to superstition and the Empire's persecution of nonaligned Force-users; many if not most of his first class were of rather dubious psychological quality.

[Tiriol]

Actually, by memory, the New Jedi Order had almost an unhealthy amount of students being influenced (and corrupted) by the dark side: Gantoris, Kyp Durron, Kueller, Brakiss, Desann, Rosh Penin... just to name a few. At least three of them were in peril due to their strong connections and attachements (Gantoris and the rest of the colonists; Kyp Durron and his brother Zed; Kueller/Dolph and his family back on his homeplanet).

I am a little short on time right now, so I shall have to be brief and address the bulk of the replies later, but:

Gantoris: Coming from a traumatic background and directly influenced by ancient Sith spirit

Kyp Durron: See above

Kueller: Point; he went over the bend after seeing his parents crucified.

Brakiss: Dark Side agent sent to inflitrate the facility, so I doubt he would really count

Desann/Penin: Videogame characters the exact circumstances around whose fall I am not aware of, so I cannot comment on them; Wookiee claims Desann had a troubled past and was a sociopath already when recruited

In the first two cases, I doubt there would be much difference for other training models, given how directly they were manipulated (supposedly, at least Kyp was partially possessed, though how much of this is a post-facto construction/rationalisation for his xenocide on Carida might be called into doubt). Brakiss was, as noted, a spy who was nearly redeemed. So, out of these at least half are suspect cases. One would also note that Skywalker did not exactly obtain the cream of the manpower barrel when he recruited his students, given that nearly all of them were outcasts due to superstition and the Empire's persecution of nonaligned Force-users; many if not most of his first class were of rather dubious psychological quality.

No fuss over short time, since we are going to have that debate in the Coliseum; we can debate the Jedi marriage situation there.

However, even if we discount the danger posed by familial ties (and at least Kueller is a case in point, since he did indeed went mad with his parents murdered; Exar Kun's spirit also manipulated Kyp Durron through his need for vengeance over his family), we come to the conclusion that [Anakin] Skywalker's fall was also something that the Jedi Order didn't cause: he was also influenced by malignant Sith presence [Palpatine] and he also had a rather troubled childhood (being a slave in a Hutt-controlled world is not nice, I reckon; and I do agree with you that the sudden change from Tatooine's crime-dominated slave world to the Jedi's s cloistered and monastery-like way of life did cause much emotional distress). What's more, that Sith presence was, at least with young Anakin, always and constantly there for many years. It speaks quite a lot about Skywalker's dedication to the Order's stated ideals and his willpower that he didn't succumb earlier (when Kyp Durron and Gantoris both fell almost immediately once the dark spirit came to them).

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

How else would you explain the Jedi being reduced from a very large number to two? If it's a rare genetic defect and Jedi aren't allowed to breed then this has a remote chance of working. Otherwise you might as well try wiping out mosquitoes in Florida.

The objective isn't to wipe out sensitivity to the Force, but the Jedi as an order. If Force sensitivity is a rare, random event, then it will keep popping up even if you kill all of the Jedi, yes, but a Force-sensitive person without a trainer is just a person with good insight and reflexes and a potential recruit for the Sith.

[Seydlitz_k]

Is it straight out of GL's mouth that jedi aren't allowed to have emotions, or that they are celibate?

From what I understood from the movies (I don't read the EU. All I know about the EU I've read here or on SWTC), a jedi needs to be compassionate but that he isn't allowed to form attachments. He should care, and love others, but he must be able to sacrifice the people and things he loves for the greater good.

This is a big theme of the OT as well. In TESB Yoda warns Luke that he may save his friends, but that that might destroy everything they've been fighting for. And in ROTJ, Luke stood on the brink of letting his hatred get the better of him, and exacting revenge for all the pain and suffering Palpatine and Vader caused to him and his friends.

Is it specifically mentioned somewhere that Jedi aren't allowed to have friends, or have sex, or have any normal, healthy, relationships with people outside the order (I didn't get much from wookieepedia)? Obi Wan has some friends outside the Order, like that guy from the diner, and there are all sorts of friendships inside the order. I can't see what the problem would be with casual sex as well - not every person you have sex with you are deeply in love with (Maybe the jedi are intergalactic hippies? Peace, and Free Love). Celibacy and isolation probably aren't the greatest idea if you want to raise healthy people, just look at the clergy.

Does GL say that a Jedi should be an emotionless robot? - I think the ideal is that they should not let their emotions get the better of them in a difficult situation. It goes without saying, that this rule is in place to stop things like Darth Vader happening.

In any case, most younglings are probably screened before they get accepted to make sure that they are not too attached. The council agreed unanimously that Anakin should not be trained after he was put through that test, as they could sense he was afraid and attached. Probably the low number of Jedi, and part of the reason Jedi families don't work, is that a major requirement is the right sort of personality - In the same way that you wouldn't entrust a pedophile with running a nursery school, giving a power hungry maniac the secrets to killing and changing people's thoughts with your mind is probably not a good idea.

[Darth Fanboy]

Is it straight out of GL's mouth that jedi aren't allowed to have emotions, or that they are celibate?

Straight out of his mouth I don't know, but there is that line in the Jedi code "there is no emotion there is peace." I have never read anything or heard anything about celibacy itself anywhere.

[Darth Hoth]

The canon Expanded Universe aside, the film lines "Attachment is forbidden. Desire is forbidden" (AotC, the highest G-canon) alone would preclude any healthy relationship, in my humble opinion. "Attachment" would refer not merely to lovers, but also friends, and this is also the reason why Jedi cannot own property - they grow attached to it. And what kind of sexual relationship would be possible without "desire"?

Lucas did say in an interview that Jedi are not required to be chaste (I believe there is a link at Wookiee), but I am very curious as to how he reconciles this with the film depiction of the Order (unless, that is, he has the Jedi be supreme hypocrites). Again in my humble opinion, onscreen should take precedence over such contradictory utterances.

EDIT - Here is the full quote for the celibate issue:

[quote=""Evil""]"Jedi Knights aren't celibate - the thing that is forbidden is attachments - and possessive relationships." [/quote]

[Darth Fanboy]

The canon Expanded Universe aside, the film lines "Attachment is forbidden. Desire is forbidden" (AotC, the highest G-canon) alone would preclude any healthy relationship, in my humble opinion. "Attachment" would refer not merely to lovers, but also friends, and this is also the reason why Jedi cannot own property - they grow attached to it. And what kind of sexual relationship would be possible without "desire"?

The way GL seems to be using the term "attachment" is more subjective than the way you are using it. Going by his own quote, Lucas doesn't see the Jedi Order in general as chaste and friendless.

Obviously Jedi aren't precluded from having friendships, even Yoda himself made many friends over his very long career. And Jedi have many close realtionships that could be described as "healthy" just within the Jedi Order. The problem with spouses and children is that losing a spouse or a child is inherently more devastating to a person.

As far as the owning property bit, that also pertains to Jedi being selfless, and devoting their lives to the Force and not just attachment.

[Darth Hoth]

The way GL seems to be using the term "attachment" is more subjective than the way you are using it. Going by his own quote, Lucas doesn't see the Jedi Order in general as chaste and friendless.

It is very sad for him, then, that the onscreen depiction and recital of the Order's rules does not match his opinions of it (add to that the fact that he tends to change his opinion on matters Star Wars every two weeks or so). I believe this is what they call "Author intent versus Canon Evidence". Or, he there acknowledged that the Jedi Order as a group employs widespread and systematic hypocrisy, as those lines in the films do not exactly disappear just because of his say-so in one interview.

Obviously Jedi aren't precluded from having friendships, even Yoda himself made many friends over his very long career. And Jedi have many close realtionships that could be described as "healthy" just within the Jedi Order. The problem with spouses and children is that losing a spouse or a child is inherently more devastating to a person.

Anakin's direct reply to the specific question of whether Jedi could love, according to their rules, consisted of the line I posted (with "compassion" being encouraged added in as a half-assed cop-out/excuse). In this case, this concerns a person who is blindly in love; thus, he obviously has a vested interest in letting his interpretation of the rules be as free as possible. Still, he brings up "attachment" as a specific issue prohibiting "love". This is obviously not referring to a hypothetical child, the product of passion and/or love, but to the object of said emotion (in Anakin's case, Senator Amidala). Also, your point fails to address how the issue of "desire" being forbidden can be addressed within the framework of such relationships. To conclude, the presence of love and relationships within the Order (of which we have many Expanded Universe examples, but apart from Anakin's no G-canon ones) does not prove that such are according to their rules (in face of direct evidence to the contrary, such as the fact that Jedi Master Ben Kenobi could credibly threaten Anakin with expulsion for his emotions for Senator Amidala), but merely that many Jedi are arbitrary and/or hypocritical in their application of them. Which would make sense, as it mirrors how real-life fundies and their organisations tend to behave.

As far as the owning property bit, that also pertains to Jedi being selfless, and devoting their lives to the Force and not just attachment.

With respect, I fail to see how this would contradict my point. The Jedi view is that attachment to property is forbidden, and hence owning property is itself forbidden.

[Havok]

Hoth you are being too damned literal. There is letter of the law and spirit of the law differences that you are completely ignoring. Jedi have individualized robes. They also have very personal attachments to their lightsabers. Anakin certainly is recognized as the owner of R2-D2. They have their own assigned starfighters which they customize. Yoda specifically expresses his grief at the loss of his friends in the Jedi Order and Chewie and Tarful.

Also Obi-Wan wasn't threatening expulsion for loving or being attached to Padme in AOTC, he was threatening that for dereliction of duty, if he went off mission to rescue her.

As for no attachment, IMO it is, as Yoda explained to Anakin in ROTS, not about not becoming attached so much as it is about being able to let go of those people and things that you have become attached to, so that you do not wallow in grief and despair over said loses.

We also, as far as the G-Canon sources go, only have Anakin's word as to what is "forbidden". As you yourself pointed out, he would have a vested interest in bending rules to suit his need. As a whiny teenager, it also seems very likely that he would almost certainly exaggerate the restrictions placed on him by the Order and Masters to the point of saying "Forbidden" when it might just be "do not do that" because it could be harmful or dangerous.

And fuck you and your "(with "compassion" being encouraged added in as a half-assed cop-out/excuse)". You either accept everything he said or it is all bullshit. You don't get to pick and choose what is applicable to suit your little pet theories.

On a general note, if we are going to evoke what Lucas has said in interviews, then we need to not include EU examples of situations he is talking about because he had nothing to do with those and cannot speak on them. Contrarily, if you are going to include EU shit, then Lucas should be left out of the equation. It should either be the movies or the EU.

[Darth Hoth]

Nonsense; the films are part of the greater whole that is the Expanded Universe. While one can have a meaningful "movie-purist" discussion, discussion of the EU by itself fails. It is built to not only include, but to accomodate the films. As for direct Lucas quotes, I prefer to disregard them when they contradict canon, nevermind the canon films themselves.

As for the "compassion" bit, I thought everyone could see how obviously Anakin was trying to be disingenious there. "Compassion, which I would like to define as unconditional love?" "So, in a sense, we are encouraged to love?" Am I really required to spell out that this is his own leap in logic, based on premises not at all shared by the majority of Jedi legislators?

[Havok]

Nonsense; the films are part of the greater whole that is the Expanded Universe. While one can have a meaningful "movie-purist" discussion, discussion of the EU by itself fails. It is built to not only include, but to accomodate the films. As for direct Lucas quotes, I prefer to disregard them when they contradict canon, nevermind the canon films themselves.

Don't be dense. Of course you include the films in an argument involving the EU. There isn't much to EXPAND on without them. The point, is that when you make an argument involving the EU, you don't go into author intent and out of universe quotes from the random writers that contribute to the canon, and you should treat the movies the same in that argument.

As for the "compassion" bit, I thought everyone could see how obviously Anakin was trying to be disingenious there. "Compassion, which I would like to define as unconditional love?" "So, in a sense, we are encouraged to love?" Am I really required to spell out that this is his own leap in logic, based on premises not at all shared by the majority of Jedi legislators?

So he is being disingenuous in that part, but not the preceding statements? Again, you don't get to pick and choose. Also, he wasn't asking questions.

[Darth Hoth]

Don't be dense. Of course you include the films in an argument involving the EU. There isn't much to EXPAND on without them. The point, is that when you make an argument involving the EU, you don't go into author intent and out of universe quotes from the random writers that contribute to the canon, and you should treat the movies the same in that argument.

My intention was not really to argue around it; I included the quote for the sake of completeness and because the preceding poster specifically asked for what had come "straight out of GL's mouth".

So he is being disingenuous in that part, but not the preceding statements? Again, you don't get to pick and choose. Also, he wasn't asking questions.

My mistake; I messed up the quote markers, and offer my apologies. Now, would you please explain your reasoning why he would include those, and deliberately twist them to sound harsher than they really are, for the sake of being disingenious? After all, they hardly support his line of reasoning. He included them for the sake of presenting Amidala with the facts, before turning to his argument as to why they would not apply (nevermind the fact that the problem remains - the "unconditional love" he speaks of must still make do without "attachment" or "desire", which defeats its purpose in his argument).

Now, there are ways we can interpret this dialogue. Either we assume that what he says is at least reasonably correct (the rules appear axiomatic enough as to render major confusion or definition problems a non-issue); this agrees with the EU depiction of the Order, thus causing the least amount of contradiction, and additionally it is the most straightforward interpretation, which does not require lengthy argumentation (relying mostly on personal opinion) for why he would really have meant something else entirely. In addition, for those who prefer a literary analysis to a more technical one, this fits with the opinions Lucas expressed and enforced in his involvement with the KotOR videogame (the cut of the pre-fall Bastila romance and some other details). Or, we accept that a single statement by Lucas completely overrides the film and EU depiction alike of the Order. In my humble opinion,the first approach is the preferable one.

[Darth Fanboy]

It is very sad for him, then, that the onscreen depiction and recital of the Order's rules does not match his opinions of it (add to that the fact that he tends to change his opinion on matters Star Wars every two weeks or so). I believe this is what they call "Author intent versus Canon Evidence". Or, he there acknowledged that the Jedi Order as a group employs widespread and systematic hypocrisy, as those lines in the films do not exactly disappear just because of his say-so in one interview.

And yet the evidence shows that not only do Jedi posess valid friendships both within and outside of the order. So your arguments against the Jedi being able to have healthy friendships at all is a little far fetched. I'm not trying to argue that the Jedi Order was flawless but there are perfectly rational reasons to keep Jedi from having spouses or children.

Anakin's direct reply to the specific question of whether Jedi could love, according to their rules, consisted of the line I posted (with "compassion" being encouraged added in as a half-assed cop-out/excuse). In this case, this concerns a person who is blindly in love; thus, he obviously has a vested interest in letting his interpretation of the rules be as free as possible. Still, he brings up "attachment" as a specific issue prohibiting "love". This is obviously not referring to a hypothetical child, the product of passion and/or love, but to the object of said emotion (in Anakin's case, Senator Amidala).

You started to get at it yourself when you said "the object of said emotion." You do realize that when a Jedi, especially an untrained one starts to harbor those kind of feelings their chances of going to the dark side increase massively right? The Jedi Order probably feels it is safer to discourage such relationships.

Also, your point fails to address how the issue of "desire" being forbidden can be addressed within the framework of such relationships.

Easy, your idea of desire is far more literal than what Lucas intended. "Desire" in this case is probably more than just the biological imperative to mate, rather it is a deep lust of the sort that causes jealous and petty feelings to arrive that in a Force-user can have catastrophic consequences.

To conclude, the presence of love and relationships within the Order (of which we have many Expanded Universe examples, but apart from Anakin's no G-canon ones) does not prove that such are according to their rules (in face of direct evidence to the contrary, such as the fact that Jedi Master Ben Kenobi could credibly threaten Anakin with expulsion for his emotions for Senator Amidala), but merely that many Jedi are arbitrary and/or hypocritical in their application of them.

And going by the films, we see Anakin failing to let go of attachments, betray the Jedi Order to side with the Sith, and become the most infamous figure in the galaxy responsible for countless deaths.

Which would make sense, as it mirrors how real-life fundies and their organisations tend to behave.

Again, your comparison with religious fundamentalists and the Jedi is not very accurate, because the Force is a very tangible thing with actual tangible consequences.

With respect, I fail to see how this would contradict my point. The Jedi view is that attachment to property is forbidden, and hence owning property is itself forbidden.

Because I don't think that the attachment to property is anything like the attachment to another being. Do you think that the Jedi not being allowed to own property is "unhealthy" as well? I have never seen anyone argue that the Jedi Order should have allowed its members to pursue material wealth and if you have one I'd like to hear it.

[Darth Hoth]

And yet the evidence shows that not only do Jedi posess valid friendships both within and outside of the order. So your arguments against the Jedi being able to have healthy friendships at all is a little far fetched. I'm not trying to argue that the Jedi Order was flawless but there are perfectly rational reasons to keep Jedi from having spouses or children.

I was speaking primarily of sexual relationships, there. Though if the "attachment" deal is closely abided to, that would invalidate friendships as well. Of course, such a rule would be impossible to enforce, since humans do not work that way.

Easy, your idea of desire is far more literal than what Lucas intended. "Desire" in this case is probably more than just the biological imperative to mate, rather it is a deep lust of the sort that causes jealous and petty feelings to arrive that in a Force-user can have catastrophic consequences.

So the gist of what he would mean is, Jedi cannot love, but they can see prostitutes, as long as they do not become attached to any particular one? Anakin brought up "desire" as something forbidden to Jedi in the context of whether they were "allowed to love".

Again, your comparison with religious fundamentalists and the Jedi is not very accurate, because the Force is a very tangible thing with actual tangible consequences.

The point is moot because love and attachment do not necessarily cause a fall to the Dark Side, and that such can easily happen for other reasons (arrogance, anger, the sense of duty, the thirst for knowledge, &c.); the Jedi Order imposes an arbitrary limit that has no real justification. Of all the canon examples of fallen Jedi, those fallen for the sake of love or passion are a minuscule percentage. The anti-love laws are unnecessary and indeed probably harmful.

Because I don't think that the attachment to property is anything like the attachment to another being. Do you think that the Jedi not being allowed to own property is "unhealthy" as well? I have never seen anyone argue that the Jedi Order should have allowed its members to pursue material wealth and if you have one I'd like to hear it.

No, this is reasonable, within an ascetic order of monks. But it points to the same principles. And yes, attachment to property is

[Alyrium Denryle]

Code: Select all

The point is moot because love and attachment do not necessarily cause a fall to the Dark Side, and that such can easily happen for other reasons (arrogance, anger, the sense of duty, the thirst for knowledge, &c.); the Jedi Order imposes an arbitrary limit that has no real justification. Of all the canon examples of fallen Jedi, those fallen for the sake of love or passion are a minuscule percentage. The anti-love laws are unnecessary and indeed probably harmful.

No, they are perfectly reasonable. Most jedi over the course of their lives might have a wife on coruscant, maybe a couple kids if this rule were not in place. They would never be in any danger etc. But if something were to happen the potential for damage would be catastrophic. If someone murdered their wife on the street, or their wife cheated on them etc etc. Most jedi could probably control the little things, but the sudden grief/anger/sense of betrayal would be enough to tip a lot of normal people over, the risk is smaller with jedi but the damage is orders of magnitude greater. A fallen Jedi can do a lot of damage before he is found and put down like a rabid dog. The benefit of allowing Jedi those sorts of attachments does not justify the risk. Especially when Jedi are young, and emotionally unstable.

In Anakin's case, frankly he started falling as soon as he killed off a village of Tusken Raiders, and his relationship with padme was NEVER healthy. The kid became sexually obsessed with her at the age of nine. Nine. He left his mother and did the Oedipus complex thing, latching onto an older woman who herself was queen of a planet at 14 and had her normal emotional development somewhat stunted by being groomed for politics at an early age. Having these two together is bad JuJu.

[Havok]

Oh come on. You have no idea if Anakin felt a sexual attraction to Padme at age 9. In fact, at age 9, Anakin may not even have known anything about the physical aspect of a loving relationship as he had no example to see or follow, never having a father to interact with his mother. And do you know what an Oedipus complex even is? It is not just liking an older woman as you proclaim, (not that a 5 year difference would ever be considered "an older woman") but the wish of DEATH on one parent and sexual desire for the other one. NOT something that applies to Anakin at all. And could you PLEASE point out where Padme shows any signs of having her "mormal emotional development somewhat stunted".

[Alyrium Denryle]

Oh come on. You have no idea if Anakin felt a sexual attraction to Padme at age 9. In fact, at age 9, Anakin may not even have known anything about the physical aspect of a loving relationship as he had no example to see or follow, never having a father to interact with his mother. And do you know what an Oedipus complex even is? It is not just liking an older woman as you proclaim, (not that a 5 year difference would ever be considered "an older woman") but the wish of DEATH on one parent and sexual desire for the other one. NOT something that applies to Anakin at all. And could you PLEASE point out where Padme shows any signs of having her "mormal emotional development somewhat stunted".

"I've dreamed about her every day for 10 years" If it wasnt a sexual obsession at 9, it became one when he hit puberty, and I mean Oedipus complex in a loose sense where he latches on to an older woman as a mother figure in the absence of his own. A little bit of transference later and you have one messed up kid. Oedipus complex was admittedly not the best term. But arguing about that is to miss the point.

As for Padme, find me a 14 year old who is has to use body doubles to avoid assassination, and is so politically skilled as to come to rule an entire planet, and I will show you someone who has been isolated from peers, love, and affection. It should be obvious that she is not going to be right in the head, and the way she fell for Anakin, someone who is down right creepily obsessed with her... pretty good indicators. Any normal 23 year old would have said "get the fuck away from me or I am calling the police"

[Havok]

Oh come on. You have no idea if Anakin felt a sexual attraction to Padme at age 9. In fact, at age 9, Anakin may not even have known anything about the physical aspect of a loving relationship as he had no example to see or follow, never having a father to interact with his mother. And do you know what an Oedipus complex even is? It is not just liking an older woman as you proclaim, (not that a 5 year difference would ever be considered "an older woman") but the wish of DEATH on one parent and sexual desire for the other one. NOT something that applies to Anakin at all. And could you PLEASE point out where Padme shows any signs of having her "mormal emotional development somewhat stunted".

"I've dreamed about her every day for 10 years" If it wasnt a sexual obsession at 9, it became one when he hit puberty,

*GASP* A teenage boy being sexual obsessed with a girl for years? NO WAY!
That said, while dreaming about a girl at that age certainly has implied sexual meaning, the way he said it to Obi-Wan and the way he acted towards her initially leads me to believe that he was mostly dreaming about the fleeting amount of time he spent with her, and didn't spend those years exclusively obsessing over her sexually, but obsessing over living up to her imagined expectations of him that he imposed on himself.

and I mean Oedipus complex in a loose sense where he latches on to an older woman as a mother figure in the absence of his own. A little bit of transference later and you have one messed up kid. Oedipus complex was admittedly not the best term. But arguing about that is to miss the point.

Again, since when did a five year difference constitute an "older woman", especially when that five year difference only puts the girl at 14. Hardly a motherly figure to latch on to. (Keep in mind he didn't know she was a Queen at the time, but merely a servant, which was similar to what he was.)You are also ignoring the fact that while he still was with his mother and wasn't detached from her, is when Anakin first met and fell in love with Padme. If we add the novel into it, he also said that he would marry her at that same meeting. So your "replacement mother theory" doesn't hold any water, because he loved and wanted to be with her even when he had his mother.

As for Padme, find me a 14 year old who is has to use body doubles to avoid assassination, and is so politically skilled as to come to rule an entire planet, and I will show you someone who has been isolated from peers, love, and affection.

Really? That's nice. Good luck finding that to prove me wrong.
That being said, we know that Padme had a perfectly normal childhood as she told stories of having crushes on boys and there are cut scenes (which I believe are considered canon) that show her in an absolutely fine and normal family situation.

It should be obvious that she is not going to be right in the head, and the way she fell for Anakin, someone who is down right creepily obsessed with her... pretty good indicators. Any normal 23 year old would have said "get the fuck away from me or I am calling the police"

Except that from what we see on screen she is extremely "right in the head". As you pointed out, she ruled an entire planet, and did so with wisdom and compassion and led the planets TWO peoples through a great crisis in the invasion and blockade. She was so not "right in the head" that the populace wanted to change their own laws so she could remain their leader.

Then, in the Senate, she was one of the only people to stand up for her beliefs and her own clearly not "right in the head" conscience and wanted to oppose the final act that gave the most evil man in the galaxy, ultimate control of it.

And since you obviously haven't watched any of the movies in question, in AOTC, that is Attack of the Clones, Padme clearly states that she had the exact same feelings for Anakin from the moment he came back into her life and was only fighting them, not because of him being "creepy" or "obsessed" as you claim, but because of their stations and responsibilities, to basically the ENTIRE galaxy, as a premier Jedi and Senator. And then it took her about to die, to voice those emotions and feelings. So basically she put her duties and responsibilities to trillions of people ahead of her own emotions and desires. How "emotionally stunted" and not "right in the head" of her.

So again, are you going to point to anything specific that shows what you are advocating or are you going to just keep saying "that's obviously not normal"?

[Darth Fanboy]

I was speaking primarily of sexual relationships, there. Though if the "attachment" deal is closely abided to, that would invalidate friendships as well. Of course, such a rule would be impossible to enforce, since humans do not work that way.

Shifiting the goalposts a little bit? Here is what you said earlier:

"Attachment" would refer not merely to lovers, but also friends, and this is also the reason why Jedi cannot own property - they grow attached to it.

Again, this all falls back on how you are interpreting attachments. BEcause in the increidbly literal way YOU are viewing it, then the entire Jedi Order is hypocritical based on the inherent bonds felt between teachers and students that their own system provides, as well as the camaraderie of other members of the order and the closed community they live in. It is a much simpler explanation that the term "attachment" refers to a Jedi's ability to let go of the things he or she cherishes most and not to selfishly cling to them as they pass out of his or her life.

Remember when Anakin went to seek Yoda's counsel in RoTS. Yoda never chastised Anakin for having close relationships, which Anakin admitted to, Yoda simply warned Anakin of the danger of not being able to let go of those relationships. "Mourn them do not, miss them do not." Nothing about not caring for others.

So the gist of what he would mean is, Jedi cannot love, but they can see prostitutes, as long as they do not become attached to any particular one? Anakin brought up "desire" as something forbidden to Jedi in the context of whether they were "allowed to love".

Why not? If a Jedi really wants to get laid that badly, or if he just happens to meet someone for a one night stand or casual fling, there doesn't seem to be any Jedi rules against that, and seeing as how Lucas' quote about Jedi being celbiate does not exclude anything seen in the movies, then there is no reason to dismiss this.

Heh, I actually wrote a chapter in UPF about this years ago, with Yoda visiting a young Twi'lek girl but that isn't what's relevant here.

The point is moot because love and attachment do not necessarily cause a fall to the Dark Side, and that such can easily happen for other reasons (arrogance, anger, the sense of duty, the thirst for knowledge, &c.); the Jedi Order imposes an arbitrary limit that has no real justification. Of all the canon examples of fallen Jedi, those fallen for the sake of love or passion are a minuscule percentage. The anti-love laws are unnecessary and indeed probably harmful.

The point is not moot because the very things that happened to Anakin Skywalker happened because he FORMED AN ATTACHMENT, GOT JEALOUS, AND WENT TO THE DARK SIDE! The exact thing he had been warned about by Obi Wan and Yoda! Apparently there was a bit of truth to what those old Jedi Masters were saying and Anakin ignored them. The Dark Side of the Force is a very real thing for Jedi to have to deal with, and Anakin was the worst possible Jedi to have formed an attachment because of his extreme devotion and loyalty to people he cared about.

No, this is reasonable, within an ascetic order of monks. But it points to the same principles. And yes, attachment to property is

Last bit of your sentence got cut off there methinks , i'll let you finish it if you like before responding.

[DrMckay]

Er. Weren't some of the factors in Anakin's fall his screwy upbringing?

Being a slave with an explosive device implanted in him throughout his childhood, Anakin is then taken away from his mother at the age of nine, and joins an (essentially religious order) which abducts and indoctrinates children from a young age?

It seems likely that if anything, growing up outside the insular Jedi Temple enabled him to be exposed to other methods of living than your average brainwashed Jedi.

Oh, and on that note, aside from their neutral stance,and the whole Force telepathy/empathy thing, how are Jedi considered the BEST negotiators in the galaxy if they are raised in an insular temple from infancy, never leaving, and given little exposure to other cultures until being assigned a master.

I don't think the prequel Jedi ideals/codes turn out well-balanced individuals. The separation from a family or society structure from a very young age, and the options of marriage and/or procreation being forbidden leaves them incapable of empathizing with or investing in (children) the society they so nobly swore to protect. It seems they only protect the average sentient out of some sense of noblesse oblige to the "less gifted" inhabitants of the society.

In my opinion, separating such powerful individuals from any society (in this case through restrictive internal codes and rules) has a large potential to either render them outcast in society, and cause them to view themselves as Superior and not a part of the culture, leading to trouble down the road.

Seems like it's kinda like not letting priests marry; when you conflict with a biological imperative/instinct, the rules become secondary.

[Darth Fanboy]

Er. Weren't some of the factors in Anakin's fall his screwy upbringing?

Being a slave with an explosive device implanted in him throughout his childhood, Anakin is then taken away from his mother at the age of nine, and joins an (essentially religious order) which abducts and indoctrinates children from a young age?

It seems likely that if anything, growing up outside the insular Jedi Temple enabled him to be exposed to other methods of living than your average brainwashed Jedi.

You're right, and Anakin wouldn't have been trained at all unless Darth Maul hadn't killed Qui Gon Jinn and thus revealed the return of the Sith, coupled with Qui Gon Jinn posterizing the young Jedi as the "Chosen One". Anakin was the exception to the rule and unfortunately for the Jedi it was a bad excpetion to make.

Oh, and on that note, aside from their neutral stance,and the whole Force telepathy/empathy thing, how are Jedi considered the BEST negotiators in the galaxy if they are raised in an insular temple from infancy, never leaving, and given little exposure to other cultures until being assigned a master.

Well the neutral stance and Force telepathy/empathy thing are huge factors, and you can't set those aside.

On top of that once a Jedi becomes PAdawan and travels with his Master as needed trhoughout the galaxy that is when the Jedi begins learning more about the outside world. We know very little of the role the Ch'unthor played but it was esentially a starship turned roving Academy. Whether it was replaced after it was lost on Dathomir I am unsure. Outsiders though are still rarely involved in Jedi internal affairs or involved within the Jedi Community, hence why I have referred to it as insular in previous posts.

I don't think the prequel Jedi ideals/codes turn out well-balanced individuals. The separation from a family or society structure from a very young age, and the options of marriage and/or procreation being forbidden leaves them incapable of empathizing with or investing in (children) the society they so nobly swore to protect. It seems they only protect the average sentient out of some sense of noblesse oblige to the "less gifted" inhabitants of the society.

What isn't well balanced about a group of people that dedicates their lives to selflessness and protecting others and using their own power for the greater good? The Jedi Order provided the family and society structure for younglings, until as Padawans they begin to explore the society of the entire galaxy. Liekly there were a few Jedi who were condescending about it, but how does that change the fact that for thousands of years the Jedi were the guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy, and for hundreds of years post-Ruusaan had a positive reputation. Name one Jedi depicted in the films other than Anakin Skywalker, and perhaps Mace Windu, in Episode 3 that came off as anything BUT well balanced.

In my opinion, separating such powerful individuals from any society (in this case through restrictive internal codes and rules) has a large potential to either render them outcast in society, and cause them to view themselves as Superior and not a part of the culture, leading to trouble down the road.

Which was part of their image that the Jedi had to deal with, and it ultimately became a part of their downfall. The growing arrogance of many in the order was a problem that was realized but never corrected due to Order 66 and the Great Jedi Purge. I'm not going to argue this, because Yoda and Obi Wan both dwell upon it heavily in the bits of literature leading up to Order 66.

But this doesn't change the fact that a force user becomes susceptible to corruption by the Dark Side if he or she forms an attachment that he/she cannot let go of, and that there were perfectly good reasons for the Jedi Order to discourage their members from having wives and children.

Seems like it's kinda like not letting priests marry; when you conflict with a biological imperative/instinct, the rules become secondary.

Except that, according to George Lucas, Jedi are not forced to be celibate. Last I checked marriage itself was not a biological imperative.

The only documented case AFAIK of a biological imperative interfering with a Jedi's career is Volfe Karkko, who as an Anzati had a presdisposition towards eating the brains of other species, and in his arrogacne believing he could control himself, gave in and became a legendary Dark Jedi.

[Darth Fanboy]

Er. Weren't some of the factors in Anakin's fall his screwy upbringing?

Just to clarify myself on this line in particular. Nothing affected Anakin's fall to the Dark Side like the loss of his mother, and his fear of losing Padme.

If Anakin had taken his Jedi training truly to heart, and followed the advice Yoda would later give in Episode 3 ("Mourn them do not, miss them do not.") Then Anakin may have been able to overcome his fear and jealousy.

It's a pretty clear example of why Jedi were discouraged from having relationships.