Did Disney change the Jedi rules about sex?

[The Romulan Republic]

Okay, if you're looking for examples of romantic love, Bastilla and Revan? Albeit no longer canon, sadly.

And while I agree that Anakin's love for Padme was tainted by a great deal of selfishness, I don't see anything innately selfless about wanting to both have a job that allows you to use your powers to do good, and also care for your wife and children.

I'm also not aware of any evidence that Jedi are supposed to be celibate in any canon (past or present, either old EU or Disney), beyond the assumption that monks=celibate (even though Jedi are typically referred to as knights, not monks).

Canon or not Revan did have to leave Bastila to face Vitiate, duty over personal wants.Being a Jedi is not an ordinary job, protecting the galaxy requires some personal sacrifice.

The key, I think, is to find a way to have healthy emotions without letting them drive you to selfish and immoral actions.

Though, choosing between a loved one and protecting the galaxy is a choice I'd never want to make. I'm not even sure what the more moral choice is their.

Holy knightly orders like the Knights Templar usually had a vow of chastity as a requirement. And the ideal knight, Sir Galahad, isn't referred to as "pure" because of his hygiene.

Fair enough, but I still haven't seen any actual canonical evidence that the Jedi Order mandates chastity, or that not being chaste necessarily leads to the Dark Side.

[LittleRaven]

Though, choosing between a loved one and protecting the galaxy is a choice I'd never want to make. I'm not even sure what the more moral choice is their.

Uh...galaxy. Obviously. It's just not the easy choice. And it's not the choice that anyone can be trusted to make. So the only way to insure that the right choice is made is to make sure there is no choice at all.


youtu.be/pozI5n6A_Io

[The Romulan Republic]

Though, choosing between a loved one and protecting the galaxy is a choice I'd never want to make. I'm not even sure what the more moral choice is their.

Uh...galaxy. Obviously. It's just not the easy choice. And it's not the choice that anyone can be trusted to make. So the only way to insure that the right choice is made is to make sure there is no choice at all.

Sure, if its a straight choice of galaxy vs. one person I love, the galaxy is the right choice. But life is never as simple as these abstract dilemas. Name me one real situation in all of time which boiled down to only two simple, clear cut possible outcomes.

youtu.be/pozI5n6A_Io

And yet, I'll remind you that Jon ultimately did make the choice to leave the Wall and the Night's Watch to fight with his family. Oh, sure, he had a legal fig leaf in that he'd technically died, relieving him of his oath, but it was still his choice. And so far, mostly good things have come of it.

He'd have been stupid to do it when the War of the Five Kings started, but not because it was a choice between his family and doing the right thing. But because he was in no place to actually accomplish any good by choosing the former over the latter.

[LittleRaven]

Sure, if its a straight choice of galaxy vs. one person I love, the galaxy is the right choice. But life is never as simple as these abstract dilemas. Name me one real situation in all of time which boiled down to only two simple, clear cut possible outcomes.

Real life never does, as you point out. And in real life, people almost never live up to the ideals expected of them. But there's a reason that the ideal knight has no family of his own...because that splits his loyalties.

Star Wars is not exactly known for nuance, and so it makes sense that Jedi Knights have no families, because that makes them closer to the Galahads of legend. Letting them have families just makes everything much more complicated, and Star Wars likes things black and white.

And yet, I'll remind you that Jon ultimately did make the choice to leave the Wall and the Night's Watch to fight with his family.

Well, sure, but Lucas and Martin are about as far apart as one can get when it comes to building fictional worlds. I posted the video because I thought it explained the 'Love is the Death of Duty' concept that I think is behind why Jedi (ideally) do not love.

[The Romulan Republic]

Sure, if its a straight choice of galaxy vs. one person I love, the galaxy is the right choice. But life is never as simple as these abstract dilemas. Name me one real situation in all of time which boiled down to only two simple, clear cut possible outcomes.

Real life never does, as you point out. And in real life, people almost never live up to the ideals expected of them. But there's a reason that the ideal knight has no family of his own...because that splits his loyalties.

Well, I might counter that if you absolutely must choose between family and the world, you choose the world, because if the world goes, your family is fucked too. A lesson Anakin learned too late.

But that's a hard choice to make. I can't really imagine making it, and no one should ever have to.

Star Wars is not exactly known for nuance, and so it makes sense that Jedi Knights have no families, because that makes them closer to the Galahads of legend. Letting them have families just makes everything much more complicated, and Star Wars likes things black and white.

Star Wars has metaphysical good and evil, at least if you take the OT at face value. Though I will maintain that that even in Star Wars, good dose not equal the Jedi Order and (to a lesser extent) evil does not equal Sith. Because while the metaphysical underpinnings of the universe have black vs. white (albeit somewhat inconsistently, especially when you bring the EU in), very few of the characters are all good or all bad. Of the major films characters, I'd say probably not one is wholly good, and only a handful are wholly bad, from what we see on screen. Though Vader, Finn, and Lando are probably the most obvious examples.

Well, sure, but Lucas and Martin are about as far apart as one can get when it comes to building fictional worlds. I posted the video because I thought it explained the 'Love is the Death of Duty' concept that I think is behind why Jedi (ideally) do not love.

I'm not sure that Martin and Lucas are that far apart, really. Martin still uses a lot of the traditional epic fantasy tropes, like the long-lost heir returning (Jon Snow), or the exiled heir (Daenerys), or the rags to riches narrative (both Jon and Daenerys), or the (rather sexist) "man tempted to evil by a manipulative beautiful woman (Jaime and Cersei)- just with more blood and sex and rape.

Edit: Although I'll concede that I have yet to see anything portrayed as unambiguously good on the metaphysical/divine level in GoT/ASOIAF.

[LittleRaven]

Star Wars has metaphysical good and evil, at least if you take the OT at face value.

And that permeates through the entire setting. The bad guys are always 'we love kicking puppies!' bad, and the worst the good guys get (at least until Rogue One) is Han shooting Greeto first. (and even THAT got retconned!) Storm Troopers are covered in armor that is totally ineffective at stopping the good guys from shooting them but does a marvelous job of converting them into faceless mooks. Good guys ride cute Tonkas. Bad guys drive around in massive armored killing machines. Even the lightsabers are color coded for our convenience. None of this is a complaint, by the way. It's all good fun. But it shouldn't be a surprise that in this kind of world, Jedi don't go halfway. They are just as idealized as everything else in the universe, and that means no icky sex complicating things.

And yeah...the EU strives to get away from this, because while this formula works fine for a 100 minute movie, it gets pretty contrived when you actually try to make a book out of it.

I'm not sure that Martin and Lucas are that far apart, really.

Yeah, they are. They both use tropes, (I mean really, what author DOESN'T?) but at least when it comes to heroic tropes, Lucas almost always plays it straight, while Martin almost always subverts it. Lucas gives us a world where good always triumphs over impossible odds, Martin portrays a world where winning is determined by who can most effectively wield violence.

[Mickey_Rat15]

He didn't say casual sex was allowed that was Jon Stewart's joke. The Jedi have always been portrayed as monastic and monks. are. celibate.

Would like to point out that a vow of celibacy is a promise to never marry. A vow of chastity is a promise to never have sex. For instance, ordinary Latin Rite Catholic priests take vows of celibacy. Monastic orders like the Jesuits or the Dominicans take an additional vow of chastity. Having sexual relations in itself is not a violation of celibacy.

[TGLS]

Well, the Catholic church also says sex outside marriage or without the goal of reproduction is also a sin too, so the difference is pretty fine.

[Mickey_Rat15]

Well, the Catholic church also says sex outside marriage or without the goal of reproduction is also a sin too, so the difference is pretty fine.

You are correct that a priest having sex would be considered sinful, but it that would be considered an ordinary spiritual failing. Breaking a vow to God is considered a more serious affront.

[The Romulan Republic]

Star Wars has metaphysical good and evil, at least if you take the OT at face value.

And that permeates through the entire setting. The bad guys are always 'we love kicking puppies!' bad, and the worst the good guys get (at least until Rogue One) is Han shooting Greeto first. (and even THAT got retconned!) Storm Troopers are covered in armor that is totally ineffective at stopping the good guys from shooting them but does a marvelous job of converting them into faceless mooks. Good guys ride cute Tonkas. Bad guys drive around in massive armored killing machines. Even the lightsabers are color coded for our convenience. None of this is a complaint, by the way. It's all good fun. But it shouldn't be a surprise that in this kind of world, Jedi don't go halfway.

Again: Anakin/Vader and Lando. Vader was evil, but not really puppy-kicking evil. More like cold, methodical, ends-justify-the-means evil. And Lando's conflicted loyalties in Episode V are neither clear good nor evil.

They are just as idealized as everything else in the universe, and that means no icky sex complicating things.

Except Anakin. And Leia (if you count her as a Jedi). And God knows how many EU examples.

I also disagree with the assumption that "sex=impure", though I know a lot of people, perhaps particularly (in the Western world) Americans, feel differently.

And yeah...the EU strives to get away from this, because while this formula works fine for a 100 minute movie, it gets pretty contrived when you actually try to make a book out of it.

Its not even that clear-cut in the films. I mean, the main focus of the films, the main character who ties them all together (aside from the droids) is Anakin Skywalker. A man who's insecurities, resentments, and possessiveness lead him to gradually fall from hero to villain, before his lingering love for his children draws him back to the good side.

I guess you could say that the way the films portray it comes off as "There's good and evil, people can have elements of both, but eventually you have to choose a side and end up being one or the other."

Yeah, they are. They both use tropes, (I mean really, what author DOESN'T?) but at least when it comes to heroic tropes, Lucas almost always plays it straight, while Martin almost always subverts it. Lucas gives us a world where good always triumphs over impossible odds, Martin portrays a world where winning is determined by who can most effectively wield violence.

Well, I suppose there's no way to know how the books will end yet, but the show definitely seems to be going for a "good guys win" ending. Its just a rougher road, and the "good guys" get their hands dirtier, along the way.

I don't think GoT is nearly as cynical as people make it out to be. Or at least, not unambiguously so. People just got fooled by Ned getting killed in the first book.