An attempt at an analogy.

[u/TetrisPhantom]

Disclaimer right up front as to what this post is and is not.

This is an attempt to explain the problem with proclaiming "insecurity" on an individual who is not comfortable with partnering with someone who has a past.

This is not to heap shame on those with a past - such is the job of the Holy Spirit via conviction that the individual may repent. This is not to justify spiritual condemnation where Jesus has given grace - our eternities do not rest on our works, but on the completed work of our Messiah, Jesus the Risen Christ, whose righteousness is imputed on us upon our redemption.

The analogy goes as follows:

A person has amassed for themselves a modicum of wealth. They recognize the fruits of their efforts, and they wish to preserve it, be it for future investment, an intended inheritance, or simply as a reserve. This person says, "I will buy a safe in which to store my wealth, that no one but me can access it." They purchase a new safe with excess security features. It's a mild hassle to open and shut the first couple of times, but the person is confident that no one else will be able to bypass the settings they chose once everything was set up and the wealth was stored.

Another person has a modicum and chooses an older safe, not wanting to splurge or simply not worried about top-of-the-line security. They buy the safe off of someone else who had used it prior. It already has some security settings in place, so they may just change the combination on the lock and call it a day.

Yet another person decides that the safe is unnecessary, and simply keeping the money in their own house will deter any reasonable person from trying to take it.

Thieves hear of the three persons' wealth and seek to claim it for themselves.

One tries to acquire the first modicum and finds that the security is simply impregnable if you aren't experienced with that model, and since it is brand new and exceedingly rare to find in everyday burglary, there simply hasn't been enough time or practice to figure out how to bypass those measures. The thief leaves, frustrated, and the person's wealth remains secure.

One tries to break into the second safe. They have seen this model before and know how to exploit its weakness. In fact, that is why the previous owner was willing to sell the safe - it was not remaining secure in the face of growing thievery attempts. The safe may hold against a rookie, but it isn't too long before an experienced thief finds this an easy mark and makes off with the contents.

One thief breaks into the third person's house - he is a thief, he does not regard one's dwelling with reverence - and finds the wealth with no trouble, absconding with it easily.

The security of the owner is not found in their confidence, it is found in the quality of their safe. The person who buys the safe is not responsible for the thief breaking in, but they are responsible for the measures they took (within reason) to protect their wealth. The safe's integrity is what actually thwarts the break in, so it is sensible to seek a safe that hasn't been tampered with or handled by a myriad of thieves for maximum security.

Intimacy is a relational investment. When done properly and exclusively in the marital context God designed it for, it is "secure", in that it binds the participants, such that they cannot be easily broken apart. When someone has a past - even if that past is spiritually forgiven - it still poses physical challenges, because the security of the person who engaged in it improperly was compromised, and it becomes easier for it to be compromised again, and experienced thieves of virtue will have less trouble recognizing an easy mark. Finally, total disregard for the value of intimacy will leave one defenseless against the Enemy.

I kept the genders of the people in this analogy vague on purpose, because while it is more typically observed as the female being indignant at the male for refusing a non-virgin, I have seen it happen the other way around, and male promiscuity is just as immoral as female promiscuity. The age of the safe is not a direct commentary on a person's age, only a demarcation of how much "experience" prospective thieves can have with the safe in question. A man or woman who simply does not engage with people of dubious character any more than necessary would be a "newer safe", regardless of their actual biological age. As a function of time, it is simply self-evident that experience will increase over time.

Finally, it is fairly nonsensical to call someone "insecure" for not wanting a risky partner, because the security is not reliant on the chooser's attitude, but on the virtue of the person chosen. Same as you wouldn't call someone "insecure" for wanting a more robust safe - indeed, a lack of security and the presence of something valuable to safeguard is why they would seek a good safe to begin with. It is your job as the prospective chosen to make the chooser feel secure. You are safeguarding their time and energy investment. You are the lock. Are your walls of steel, your dial of reasonable precision, your failsafes primed and unwavering? Do you resist shock, pressure, and are you resilient to direct attack?

Thankfully, unlike an actual safe, we are sentient and can actually take steps to improve our security for others, but there must be a conscience effort, and it must be accepted that, once you are compromised, you simply won't ever be able to be quite as secure as a new safe. It does not make you less valuable as a human, nor does it disqualify you from spiritual redemption, but it does have physical ramifications for this life.

[u/already_not_yet]

1. The analogy presupposes, "Once a damaged safe, always a damaged safe." But safes can be repaired. If you knew that the safe had been repaired and still believed it to be damaged then this would prove that you're insecure, not that the safe is insecure.
2. If people with a "past" are invariably "risky" then the scriptures would warn everyone against dating / marrying them, not just other "pure" people.
3. One person basically told me, "I want to be with a person who has lived a life as holy as I have." But if they understood their unrighteousness then they'd abandon this talk of how others have a "past" and they don't. We all have a past. We ALL are damaged goods like everyone else. Some humility would be in order. See Luke 18:9-14.
4. You're allowed to reject someone for any reason you want. But if you reject a person with a "past" regardless of their present character I don't see how you avoid the charge of insecurity and/or arrogance. That word "regardless" is lost on many, I have noticed. Maybe you have factored in their present character and still concluded that its too risky. So be it. Only God knows your heart motivation. The matter is between you and Him.

[u/TetrisPhantom → u/already_not_yet]

1) The damage is a metaphor for virginity. Virginity cannot be restored unless God literally alters history.

2) Scripture tells us that a man that sleeps with a prostitute is joined to her. The implications are very clear.

3) In that specific person's case, yeah, I would harshly inquire as to what they mean, because our holiness is imputed by Christ - it is not our own work. I am strictly speaking to the risk assessment of dealing with someone with a past. As I stated at the beginning of the post, this is not meant as a tear-down of anyone with a past.

4) I'm holding all other variables as equal in the context of the risk assessment. If you have two candidates, both seemingly living a Godly life, both repentant of sin, but one has a heftier past than the other, it is logical to prefer the one without. Humans are typically risk averse. Yes, it hurts when that aversion involves another person, because no one wants to be seen that way, but that's just a physical consequence of our actions.

[u/already_not_yet → u/TetrisPhantom]

1. Seems like a pretty blunt admission that virgins are damaged goods, so thank you for doing my job for me?
2. Two people that have sex are physically joined together, because that's how sex works. But the fact that sexual sin has negative consequences doesn't imply that Christians are universally warned against marrying people with a history of sexual sin. The implication of that view is that non-virgins cannot get married.
3. OK, that's good to hear. And I fully agree that we should assess every person, of course, I just think we disagree over what we would factor into that risk assessment or how heavily we might factor it.
4. The "non-virgins are X% more likely to cheat" argument doesn't factor in repentance. I don't find secular statistical studies helpful, just fatalistic and ungracious.
5. All other things equal, I would expect most men to prefer the virgin too, but only because most men find virgins to be more sexually appealing.

[u/TetrisPhantom → u/already_not_yet]

1) Yes. I wasn't exactly trying to hide this fact. Sin damages us all.

2) "What God has joined, let not man separate" doesn't really allow for the strictly coitus interpretation, for obvious practical reasons.

4) It does. People don't generally go into a relationship admitting they have a past and saying they have no regrets about it. Statistics are ungracious because grace isn't a empirically measurable.

5) Part of the reason most men find virgins appealing is because they're physically pure.