Jedi Sex

Awww yeah…

Recently there was a bit of a hoopla over an article from CBR about the Jedi and how they regard sexual relationships.

While discussing the Jedi and the Force with Vessel co-pilot Affie Hollow, Reath Silas — the Padawan of Jora Malli — explains how the Jedi “give up individual attachments in order to focus entirely on greater concerns.” “So… that means no sex,” Affie replies. From there, Reath muses whether he should go into his master’s explanation about the difference between “celibacy of the body and true purity of the heart” but opts not to. The discussion continues later on in the chapter, this time with Vessel pilot Loex Gyasi being involved, as the characters go back and forth about the difference between love and sex.

ComicBook.com goes on to explain:

However, Reath surprises by considering introducing the views of his teacher, Master Jora, on the subject of sex. According to Reath’s internal monologue, Master Jora had a distinct view of “the difference between celibacy of the body and true purity of the heart.” He jokes to himself that Master Jora’s speech on the subject is too long, and instead to concede that Jedi are basically celibate monks.

The suggestion here is that Jedi are prohibited to participate in marriage because that represents an attachment, but can engage in casual sex all they like. Mr H. Reviews comments on the matter:

Mr. H makes reasonable comments in that casual sex is something that just about every adult has engaged in. But he asks if this is really the message that ought to be sent to children; to swear off long term relationships and become a sexual petri dish instead. Because remember, SJWs have long argued that Star Wars “is for kids.” So what is the purpose of pushing these ideas to children? Mr H. wonders whether or not this is really about attacking Western values, and certainly there is a large aspect of that, which you can read about in my posts on the history of the Culture War here, here, and here.

But as High Republic author Cavan Scott points out, George Lucas had made similar remarks back in 2002 which was reported in a BBC article.

It should also be noted that George Lucas said the same thing at Celebration V.

What’s interesting about the George Lucas comment from the BBC however, is that there is no context for the quote. We don’t get to read what George may have said before or after that comment, or what the interviewer asked him.

Nevertheless, the question remains as to whether or not this is a good message to send to children. After all, casual sex is an activity with risks not the least of which is a variety of social diseases. Will the High Republic address Space Herpes?

But clearly SJWs think it is, since USA Today publicly called for a sex scene in a Star Wars movie. And it will likely come at some point, probably in whatever Star Wars movie Brie Larson stars in. They simply cannot stop thinking about the matter.

But George had a better way of handling the topic of the birds and the bees than with crass on-the-nose dialogue. Because what George said in 2002, is essentially echoed in the dialogue of Attack of the Clones:

Padme: Are you allowed to love? I thought that was forbidden for a Jedi.

Anakin: Attachment is forbidden. Possession is forbidden. Compassion, which I would define as unconditional love, is central to a Jedi’s life. So, you might say, we are encouraged to love.

Note how George never uses the word “sex” in his dialogue. And that’s the real crux of the matter for me here. Artists like George Lucas were able to tackle adult topics in a way where adults fully understood it. But at the same time, it would fly over the heads of small children who didn’t need to know anything about it. And those who were on the cusp of adulthood would either understand it or not depending on where they were in their maturity levels.

But this kind of nuance is not present in modern writers. Contrast George Lucas’ dialogue, with the following passages from Into The Dark by Claudia Gray:

It reads like a crass on-the-nose Twitter dialogue with a teenager, which I suppose is who this may be aimed at.

So the conclusion we can probably come to here, is that the Star Wars novels have essentially become young adult romance novels that are preoccupied with base sexual content, rather than focusing on a sweeping epic about wars in the stars.

Thanks to Purple Smurf for the tip.

42 thoughts on “Jedi Sex

  1. The fact that Jedi aren’t celibate doesn’t mean they have sex or go look for it. In fact, engaging in sex, feeding one’s lust and pleasure is contrary to the Jedi’s selfless way of life. Pleasure is inherently selfish and the Jedi let go of that by definition. Craving sex and engaging in sexual activities is a form of attachment. Attachment to pleasure.

    As Lucas said back in 1994 on the Jedi and the Force:

    “The only way to overcome the dark side is through discipline. The dark side is pleasure, biological and temporary, and easy to achieve. The light side is joy, spiritual and everlasting, and difficult to achieve. A great challenge. Must overcome laziness, give up quick pleasures and overcome fear, which leads to hate.”

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Spot on with this article, Itchy.

    Not only was this passage above horribly written (and they complain about George’s dialog!), but it doesn’t feel at all consistent with the Star Wars universe. It’s another great example of people taking their own views of, well, whatever, and trying to graft the trappings of Star Wars onto it.

    All of the romantic relationships in Star Wars are reminiscent of classical romances seen in the films and serials that inspired them. They were not influenced by the more realistic, earthy, edgy, representations that were oh so very common of the seventies. They were purposefully intended to represent a more innocent version of youthful love.

    The elements that these books are trying to interject into Star Wars are the antithesis of what Star Wars was created to be and how it was meant to inspire. It’s too bad that the intellectual property has been pilfered and defiled by a cabal of mentally immature cretins, who are more interested in subverting that history for their own vision of what it should have been.

    Liked by 3 people

    • It would be one thing if padawans were given the “birds and bees” talk by their masters when they got old enough to understand, but but sexual stuff should be kept to a minimum in Star Wars.

      Like

      • Correct. Star Wars is old-fashioned storytelling aimed at a general audience. Revenge of The Sith’s PG-13 rating (surely given to the film primarily for Anakin’s immolation, but also note that the scene depicts the consequences of EVIL, and so has moral value, despite being explicit) is about as far as it should ever go.

        Like

      • Why in the world (or galaxy) would anyone want to see that in a Star Wars movie?

        Next we’ll have two characters talking about the finer aspects of basic hygiene. It’s just not something that fits in the spirit of the movies.

        Like

    • You see, back in the day, writers were professionals who knew their audience, and were able to write in LAYERS so that both children and adults could find things to chew on in a product which remained all- ages friendly.

      It’s a lost art,

      Now, we have an increasingly narrow focus on race, gender, and sexuality in what is supposedly (in their words) a “kids’ series about space wizards”.

      Looking forward to the novels descending into Twilight/50 Shades of Gray-style, exploitative (and increasingly explicit) hackery.

      Anyone up for bondage scenes with Yoda and Yaddle? Creepy Uncle Luke doing Bad Touch with Baby Yoda? Threepio’s coming-out party?

      Liked by 1 person

      • “It’s a lost art…”

        I don’t think any of these people would understand the back-and-forth between Bacall and Bogart.

        Bacall: “Speaking of horses, I like to play them myself. But I like to see them work out a little first. See if they’re front-runners or come-from-behind. … I’d say you don’t like to be rated. You like to get out in front, open up a lead, take a little breather in the back stretch and then come home free.”

        Bogart: “You’ve got a touch of class, but I don’t know how far you can go.”

        Bacall: “A lot depends on who’s in the saddle.”

        Liked by 1 person

        • As I recently noted, a friend of mine seeing the OT for the first time described Han seducing Leia as “kinda rapey”.

          On the flipside, I’ve been watching a lot of “first time reaction” videos on YouTube, where (usually young) people watch older films for the first time and react on-camera. It’s fascinating to watch, because the things that have always worked in Star Wars—the REAL Star Wars—still work, and will always work.

          Anyway, in one recent video on The Empire Strikes Back, the viewer wondered aloud why there was so much tension between Han and Leia at the beginning of the film, then knowingly said “Oh.” when Han calls Leia out on her feelings for him in the Echo Base hallway. “Oh”, as in, “Oh, this is romantic tension disguised as arguing.”.

          At least some people still understand that Bogart/Bacall-style of flirting, which was a specific inspiration for Han and Leia’s relationship.

          Liked by 3 people

  3. Years ago when I heard about Lucas’ idea about the no marriage and relationships but not celibate I thought this was way of showing the Jedi past their prime and in decline.

    So then Lucasfilm does the High Republic showing the Jedi in their prime behaving in the same way.

    There goes that idea of mine.

    Like

    • “Years ago when I heard about Lucas’ idea about the no marriage and relationships but not celibate I thought this was way of showing the Jedi past their prime and in decline.”

      I’ve always thought the same thing. “Can’t marry but can have sex” sounds like a doctrine from some heretical cult like the Cathars/Albigensians. It’s an expression of a mentality that Luke ultimately invalidates when he uses the emotional attachment between himself and his father to end the Sith and save the Galaxy (in defiance of the last surviving members of the old Jedi Order, who were openly urging him to commit patricide).

      “So then Lucasfilm does the High Republic showing the Jedi in their prime behaving in the same way.”

      Rot can take a long time to fully manifest itself in an institution. In the case of the “High Republic” I would say that neither NuLucasfilm nor their Jedi are aware of that.

      Like

  4. “Jedi Knights aren’t celibate. The thing that is forbidden is attachments…”

    “Attachments…” Before, I was thinking strap-ons, now all I can think about is vacuum-cleaners.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I think George was speaking more in theory. It is hard to reconcile any successful Jedi seeking out carnal desires as they would be flirting dangerously close to the dark side.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Exactly. The Jedi already let go of lust and pleasures, all of which are part of the dark side. There’s no specific obligation to being celibate because it’s implicit in the way of life they chose to take.

      Liked by 1 person

      • As noted, we have no context for the Lucas quote. He was likely just saying that Jedi aren’t forbidden from sex, but it’s also not really a concern for them.

        The morality in Lucas’ Star Wars films is quite wholesome, after all.

        I have a sneaking feeling that a lot of people bitched about the Jedi being celibate monks in the prequels because it ruined the fantasies of a lot of lonely nerds who wanted to live vicariously through their onscreen heroes.

        And now we have crazy cat ladies living vicariously through Mary Sue characters in the books they write. It only goes down from here, folks.

        Liked by 3 people

        • “I have a sneaking feeling that a lot of people bitched about the Jedi being celibate monks in the prequels because it ruined the fantasies of a lot of lonely nerds who wanted to live vicariously through their onscreen heroes.”

          I don’t know about that… My recollection of the SW fandom at the time is that the PT Jedi were *very* popular among many nerds because they provided a fantasy of being a super-powered and divinely-justified judge, jury and executioner hovering over the common throng of more mundane beings like the sword of Damocles (tellingly, many fans will, to this day, absolutely lose their shit if you suggest that a non-Force-user could beat a Jedi in a fight).

          Liked by 1 person

  6. I don’t think Sith Lords were any different in their sexuality as opposed to the Jedi overall. It was not something that took up a lot of their time, since they’re usually well disciplined and dedicated to their craft. Especially going by the EU. However some Sith Lords did have concubines. But being that legacy is always an issue, it would make sense for Sith Lords to breed with a woman or multiple women to create future potential Sith Apprentices and warriors of whatever level.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. I’m laying this whole Jedi’s cant have attachments/sex on LFL if not Georges’ feet.

    Prior in the old EU some of the first Jedi recruits for Luke’s new academy were sons/daughters and grandsons/granddaughters of Jedi’s. It wasn’t until the PT era w/the whole jedi’s are “monks” and can’t have attachments BS that we saw the shift in view of the old Jedi order. (I always saw jedis as Paladins/Knights ya know… like an order of Knights… )

    I suppose the pendulum on this started to swing in the early/mid 90’s when some people couldn’t understand why Luke couldn’t bring himself to kill his own father… we see the fruits of the deconstruction of the father figure in literature/media yet again coming to bare. Luke hated the Empire as he says in ANH but in Empire he learns his father was one of the leaders of it… and its jarring and leaves him torn as we see near the end of ESB as he escapes on the Falcon.

    But in the PT Jedi’s cant have attachments (Sucks for Shmi she has to stay a slave woman) nor love. George tiptoed around around the issue since sex without attachment isn’t really a subject he wants to bring up in heavily in Star Wars especially for mom’s and papa’s who want to buy wholesome merchandise from his license for their kiddos.

    Had GL/LFL had kept the lore where jedi could marry and be knights with spouses (per the old 70s scripts) it’d make the situation a lot less convoluted. But imo he was more interested/being pressed to show the fall of a righteous order from within rather then making them a fallible institute that is destroyed by a superior antagonist in Palpatine. Making the Clone Wars a mere backdrop for some bad dialogue.

    Side note:
    It’s a reason I hated the use of the Clone Wars from its original versions to the newer PT/2002-2008 versions. From being a galactic wide conflict to being used as a tool for Palpatine b/c he couldn’t take down the Jedi w/out causing one… which after thinking about it kind of undercuts Palpatine’s abilities as a villain if he has to create a ghost war to bring the Jedi into it to weaken them rather then poison them from within but that’s a conversation for another day lol.

    In conclusion had they let Jedi’s be more humanized rather then being a sacred order of infallible monks and this mess could have been avoided IMO.

    Like

  8. I’m not really surprised that a writer from George Lucas’s generation would fit Free Love/Open Relationship themes into his fiction. It was a frequent topic in the themes of the SciFi genre, especially in the late 60s and early 70s. The Manson family was a Free-Love commune. It ties in with their unified theories of gender equality and the Western Patriarchy – and Anakin’s fall is basically caused by “possessive love”. Growing up near the Coast of Northern California, there were always gross old hippies around pushing these doctrines and trying to get young people to join their nudist communes.

    “The patriarchy teaches you to be ashamed of your body, to be ashamed of feeling pleasure. Why don’t you take off your clothes and jump in the hot tub, smoke some weed, and hang out with some naked 50 year olds that want to help you free your mind from the yokes society has put on it?”

    Yeah… no thanks.

    But there is a big portion of the Lucas generation that truly believes this philosophy – and Lucas probably is a member of that group.

    Like

    • Yet Lucas specifically inserted a traditional marriage into the prequels with Anakin and Padme, rather than, say, making Luke and Leia the illegitimate fruit of an illicit affair. Also, Anakin and Padme’s story is about the cost of greed and selfishness (which leads to possessiveness and jealousy), not “toxic masculinity”.

      And Lucas also reportedly bristled at the notion of Indiana Jones and his father both being sexually involved with the same woman in Last Crusade, but eventually allowed it in.

      Lucas’ morality seems to be a lot more old-school and wholesome than people might give him credit for.

      Like

      • Also it seems to me that Shmi being left behind was clearly more about the Jedi not interfering in local affairs on planets outside of the Republic’s jurisdiction rather than a matter of upholding their rules about attachment.

        Qui-Gon stealing Shmi away from Watto would be a case of him overstepping his bounds, and essentially stealing what the planet’s laws would surely deem as Watto’s rightful property.

        Like

        • Not only that, but people who argue that the Jedi should have dealt with Shmi to pander Anakin are completely missing the point of what Lucas is conveying. Anakin’s fears shouldn’t be pandered or fed. Anakin needs to let go. To let go of his attachments, to let go of what he fears to lose. Shmi herself told him that. He can’t constantly live in fear of what might or might not happen to those he cares about. That’s not an healthy or productive life, specially for a Jedi. Anakin needs to accept the fact that he’s not in control and needs to let go.

          People like to forget that when Shmi was kidnapped by the Tuskens she was no longer a slave. She was freed years before that happened. Freedom doesn’t make one less susceptible to (mortal) danger. If anything, it makes one more susceptible to it. Yet Anakin broke his duty and rushed to her out of fear.

          Like

    • Lucas did nothing of the sort. That’s the opposite of what he did. He showed heroes who let go of selfishness (and that includes lust and pleasure) in order to be selfless through compassion and humility, all the way through. That’s why they sacrifice their personal desires to a life of service. No different than what happens in many religious/spiritual orders in the real world.

      Like

  9. Jedi were allowed to have sex so long as they didn’t get attached. Like say, Anakin Skywalker marrying Padme in secret is wrong in the eyes of the Council, but if Anakin and Obi-Wan got drunk at a pub, had sex with some Twi’lek hookers, then promptly forgot about them the next morning, the Jedi Council won’t hold it against them.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s