Every Jedi would have some form of attachment that would be permanent. Their Parents. Unless of course they are some form of species that his hatched from a clutch of eggs with no idea of their lineage. But for all the hominid species, this would have been a real probable attachment. It was all played out with Anakin, and later with Luke. [quote]Jedi are allowed to get freaky, no strings attached, food for thought...[/quote] Maybe it's just a form of control, to limit the possibility of too many progenitor Jedi or Sith from creating their own brood of Force wielding army. Maybe a vow of becoming a eunuch or monk should have been required for a "no attachment" life style to work.

[i] [/i]

I feel like the whole no attachments thing is misunderstood, maybe I’m wrong. I think you can have attachments but must let go when you lose them, and that’s the hardest thing to do.

Hmmm… let’s see. Well, there is a downside to this. In order for it to be categorised as an attachment, it must be an emotional bond between two people that persists over a long period of time. As a Jedi, they likely would spend prolonged periods of time away from any children they may have. This isn’t good if the child’s primary caregiver is the Jedi. Prolonged separation during the early years of the child’s life could result in maternal deprivation, as Bowlby suggested. This could lead to impaired intellectual, physical and emotional development. This begs the question, is the rule against having attachments in place to encourage Jedi to commit to their roles as keepers of the peace, or to prevent psychological harm from being done to those who could be affected by Jedi commitments. That’s not to mention the potential trauma that could be experienced if the Jedi loses their life.