We know that Jedi aren't supposed to have a family, because the emotional attachments cause bad dialog, wooden acting and acute case of turning into a Sith.

But are pre-Empire Jedi, as @Richard put in a recent comment, required to be celibate, which technically speaking means no sexual relations of any kind, even ones that don't involve emotional attachment?


- This is only regarding Jedi Order as it existed in the recent period prior to the fall of the Republic in ROTS and creation of the Galactic Empire. If Luke's NJO or Old Republic Jedi rules were different, it may be a good addition to the answer, but without the data for the pre-Empire period, it won't really answer what I'm after.

- Answer may be sourced from any canon (Disney, or pre-Disney G- to C-).

  • 4
    @KSmarts - which part of "means no sexual relations of any kind" wasn't a clear enough indication of what meaning I intended? :) Commented Jan 15, 2015 at 16:21
  • 6
    @KSmarts - the question isn't "What meaning of celibate was used in universe". It's "Did the in universe rules confirm with the definition I'm specifying, whatever you call it". Commented Jan 15, 2015 at 16:38
  • 5
    If kotor counts, then no, jedi get freaky all the time.
    – user16696
    Commented Jan 15, 2015 at 17:19
  • 10
    @cde - "get" or "are allowed to get"? Commented Jan 15, 2015 at 17:19
  • 4
    @cde Just because I saved her doesn't mean I'm going to charge up her loading ramp.
    – KSmarts
    Commented Jan 16, 2015 at 16:26

5 Answers 5


There is an article on BBC News which contains an interview with George Lucas, including the following passage:

...But Lucas revealed that despite their monastic regime, Jedi were permitted to have sex.

"Jedi Knights aren't celibate - the thing that is forbidden is attachments - and possessive relationships."

  • 31
    So bunk buddies and nsa are fine
    – user16696
    Commented Jan 15, 2015 at 18:17
  • 31
    The Jedi are weird. Commented Jan 15, 2015 at 19:47
  • 24
    I'm even more like a Jedi than I thought! Commented Jan 15, 2015 at 20:54
  • 28
    Jedi invented Tinder Commented Jan 15, 2015 at 22:53
  • 96
    Occupation: Jedi Knight. Hobbies: Coaching kids in lightsaber use, beard-growing and maintenance, investigating clone armies. Looking for: NSA relationship with non-Force User who knows how to handle a lightsaber, if you know what I mean. Preferred species: I like big Hutts and I cannot lie! Commented Jan 16, 2015 at 4:23

In the book The Star Wars Heresies: Interpreting the Themes, Symbols and Philosophies of Episodes I, II and III, there is a reference to a statement from Lucas stating that while marriage and familial attachments are definitely proscribed, Jedi are not necessarily celibate.

At Celebration V, Lucas confirmed during the Main Event that while Jedi were not necessarily celibate, they were not allowed to marry or have familiar relationships

  • 12
    So, basically, the Jedi Council had a policy of "hit it and quit it"?
    – Hack-R
    Commented Jul 22, 2016 at 4:39

George Lucas did say the Jedi were not necessarily celibate. "Jedi Knights aren't celibate - the thing that is forbidden is attachments - and possessive relationships" (BBC News Article). However, this statement does seem to cause a bit of incontinuity within the movies and story-line.

Most obviously, if the Jedi were allowed to have sex, why would Anakin have gotten expelled for getting Padme pregnant?

If the council finds out that you're the father, you'll be expelled.

Padme, Revenge of the Sith

He would have had to keep their marriage secret, but it does not make sense that he would have to hide the fact that they were having children.

Furthermore, the Jedi are the religious group of the Star Wars world, and most religions consider casual/unmarried sex immoral (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, to name a few of the big ones). And the Jedi seem to be even more radical than most religious, forbidding even attachment, possession, and love. The Jedi value selflessness, purity, discipline, and self-control, none of which are exactly exhibited in sleeping with someone just to satisfy your sexual urges.

There are also a lot of parallels between the Jedi and Christian monks, who are not allowed to marry or have sexual relations, or own many possessions, or experience many earthly pleasures. (A lot about the Jedi seems to have been inspired by Christianity: Anakin's spiritual conception, the phrase "May the Force be with you," etc.)

All in all, it seems (at least, I believe) the story would make more sense and have less plot-holes if the Jedi were required to be celibate. However, George Lucas is the creator of these films and the Jedi, so it would not be fair to disregard his input on the matter.

I think there is a sort of middle-ground, a compromise, in this issue. So, the Jedi were not specifically forced to be celibate. They were not required to take a vowel of celibacy, like monks are, and there was no specific rule in the Jedi Code forbidding sex. However, it seems Jedi celibacy was almost implied by other rules, like the forbidding of attachment, and possession, and intimate relationships, and love. It could be difficult to participate in sexual activities with someone without getting at least a little attached to him/her. Not impossible, of course, but does it seem like something the Jedi would want to risk?

So, did all of the Jedi abstain from having sex? Maybe not, but based on the information and hints presented in the movies, it seems they likely did.

  • 5
    Having children leads to familial attachment, and what would definitely be considered a possessive relationship. The natural attachment between a parent and their child is more intense than any but the most psychopathic obsessions. Any but the most epic soul mate relationship pales in comparison. However, the reason he would be expelled from the Jedi Order upon discovery of his having fathered a child with Padme is that any fool could tell they were in love. And a child together would put the final nail in it. At that point there would be no denying it.
    – Xalorous
    Commented Aug 10, 2016 at 14:18
  • 1
    Based on Yoda's advice of "That which you are afraid, give up you should.", I got the impression that the Jedi were more based on Buddhism than Christianity.
    – Verdan
    Commented Jan 2, 2018 at 2:11
  • I always considered it one of those unspoken rules. Most real-life religious orders have no specific rule against super-gluing your hand to your forehead ("Thou shalt not super-glue any of thine appendages to any other part of thy body as the noobs do, thus the will of the LORD, that thou not be a noob.") or insisting on walking on all fours, but I doubt such behavior would be well-received. Commented Feb 15, 2019 at 15:12

Lucas said sex is not forbidden them, only attachment, so that is the basic answer.

However it is problematic whether a Jedi could ever have sex while being true to the Jedi way.

The Jedi are clearly modeled on Buddhist warrior monks such as Shaolin Temple. Buddhist monks are celibate, and even sexual thoughts are discouraged. The phrase "attachments are forbidden" is very Buddhist; Buddhists strive to eliminate all desire or attachments. Even if one does not have a personal attachment to a sexual partner it is hard to imagine having sex without having a strong desire and attachment to sex itself.

  • 1
    Do you have a source for where Lucas said that?
    – Edlothiad
    Commented Jan 1, 2018 at 21:24

I think the celibacy of Jedi is theoretically only a prohibition of emotional bondage and marriage but Jedi are trained to always act according to a strict moral code and having an intercourse without emotional bondage is something considered immoral in most of the known societies so I guess it is an unspoken restriction of having any kind of sexual action. I also assume that it is forced because of similar reasons than the celibacy of the catholic priests: to prevent the spread of weath - in this case the force sensitivity. You see both the children of Luke and Leia are force sensitive (in the EU). The Jedi order had to prevent the spread of force sensitivity because of logical reasons: more force sensitive people means more possible sith.

  • 1
    You need some evidence that force sensitivity is something that shouldn't be spread, and that this is relevant (we can assume birth control exists).
    – Rex Kerr
    Commented Jan 17, 2015 at 19:13
  • @RexKerr Well I directly stated the dangers of spreading force sensitivity in my answer above. (More force sensitive people can mean more turning to the dark side.) On my opinion in details see another answer of mine on the topic. Also why do you assume that birth control exists in a universe that is advanced enough to have hyperdrives and planetary destruction energy weapons but isn't avare of handrails? (I mean mostly paralel technological advance does necessairly means equal results in every area.)
    – mg30rg
    Commented Jan 19, 2015 at 12:34
  • 1
    You need some evidence that this matters to the Jedi in the Star Wars universe. It makes perfect sense in Dune, for the reasons you state. But it does not follow that this is the agenda of the Jedi, especially in a universe where people can be trusted not to walk off high narrow paths with no railings. (Note that heavily trafficked places do have railings including Bespin and the walkway to the Emperor's chambers in the second Death Star.)
    – Rex Kerr
    Commented Jan 19, 2015 at 21:01
  • @RexKerr - Well, as far as it can be seen in the movies or learned from the EU books I have read (a few, but not all), most of the population of the SW universe consists of smugglers, thieves, pirates and other criminals. Half of the remaining population is enlisted in some sort of a band, army, regiment or militia. So I think you need evidence that the Jedi order (or even the senate of the old republic) can control an extremely violent and law avoiding population of ten thousand planets of force wielders. Till then I will stick to my opinion.
    – mg30rg
    Commented Jan 21, 2015 at 11:48
  • 1
    They can't even detect a Sith when they are standing next to one.
    – Oldcat
    Commented Aug 28, 2015 at 22:16

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.