"Security is like virginity: you're either a virgin or you're not. You either have security or you don't"

Security is an absolute concept, not a spectrum. Just as virginity is a binary state—where an individual either possesses it or does not—security operates in a similarly uncompromising manner. Only complete preparedness, effective protection, and vigilance constitute its presence. Anything less, even with partial measures in place, equates to insecurity. Attempting to grade or scale security, suggesting "more" or "less" secure, implies an illusion of safety that can lead to vulnerabilities being overlooked.

True security means that all foreseeable threats are systematically accounted for and mitigated. Gaps, however small, undermine the very purpose of security measures. A warded door is useless if a window is left open—security is breached not by the strengths of the protective systems, but by their weakest point. The analogy to virginity is striking for its clarity and finality; there are no half-measures, no degrees, and certainly no shades of gray.

This binary nature of security becomes even more meaningful in national and international contexts. States that perceive themselves as insecure, even in only some areas, cannot claim to be secure. Their vulnerabilities, whether physical, cyber, or diplomatic, are potentially catastrophic. Nations live under persistent existential threats, and policymakers must take decisive actions to ensure that security is total, not partial. Complacency or the belief that “mostly secure” is sufficient can lead to devastating consequences.

The quote also serves as a warning against complacency and false reassurance. Individuals and organizations often mistake complexity or investment in security tools for actual safety. But unless security is comprehensive and maintained, a single flaw is enough to nullify all efforts. Security, like virginity, is a state that cannot be approximated or achieved in part—it is either present in its entirety or absent altogether.