wifes history

This is very true and you have demonstrated it fully via your responses to others.

You are describing the process of falling in love as if it were identical to the process of selecting a cell phone model from a wide variety of choices, based on the specs that you have listed for yourself before embarking on the selection process. I cannot help adding a bit of sarcasm by pointing out that even if falling in love WERE akin to selecting a cell phone model, the fact that the cell phone chosen has worked so well for so long should make a reasonable person suspect that the "no threesome" spec is immaterial to the performance parameters. Back to being serious: falling in love is not akin to selecting a cell phone model. It is true that people might be intuitively looking for similarities when they fall in love (although opposites can attract, too), the process of falling in love is extremely complex. Modern dating sites are based on complex mathematical algorithms whose goal is to pair people according to some criteria. Have you seen the world becoming enormously happier in the love department since the advent of dating sites? NO. This is because the algorithms fail to capture the complexity of the process, plus, they do not address the connection that people form based on uncapturable parameters such as the sound of the voice, the smell, the way we carry ourselves when we walk, and a myriad others. So you apparently fail to see that and are of the opinion that falling in love is a controllable process that follows a decision tree; well, I am going to break the following news to you - it is not and it will never be.

Moreover, it could be that your would-be wife had enough intuition to realize that you were haunted by your painful past to such a degree that would have made you unable to process the fact of her threesome experience/attraction to females appropriately (and she would have been right).

So I apologize for the sarcasm that was in this quote (and might have been in my other posts on your thread as well) - when I was posting, I did not fully appreciate the fact that you are unable to process sarcasm due to what seems to be an unusual peculiarity in your thinking process (I will address it later). I will not use any more sarcasm with you.

OK, then, I said

and you responded with

How did your response relate to my post? I was saying that having a consensual threesome is not a crime, nor a transgression, and therefore the word "excuse" was not applicable. You started talking about your preferences (whom you do and do not want to associate with). So apparently in your mind your not wanting to associate with somebody makes that person a criminal whose actions need to be pardoned. Do you see that? In reality, while you are free to have any sort of a preference as long as you yourself do not commit crimes in implementing it, people who do not fit your standards are not criminals. So you seem to live in an a very weird world in your mind in that everything revolves around you and you determine what actions need to be excused or can be excused. Also, in all your talking about sex you have never mentioned mutuality, consent, and free will. The thing is, mutuality, consent, and free will are "essence" and the number of partners is not "essence", which is why civilized societies criminalize seduction of minors but do not criminalize consensual threesomes amongst adult participants. Your visceral reactions to the news (that you cannot look at her at times etc.) are understandable and not within your control, so one can definitely sympathize, but at least on the level of higher order thinking, you should at least be able to see that your wife did not violate anybody's rights in having a threesome (by the way, the combined hours spent by you and various people on this thread have by now probably surpassed the amount of time your wife spent in the threesome), and morality is primarily about that - morality is about whether people get hurt and not about the number of partners or same sex attraction. So, that about the usage of words. Trippin has also corrected you on the misuse of the term "promiscuous" but you have not acknowledged the correction.

Now, that is proper use of English. Indeed, you decide what to approve of. But still, if you do not approve of something, that something is not automatically a transgression, and therefore does not need to be "excused". Can you see that?

Most people realize that girlfriends can often act as confidantes, especially if girlfriends happen to be non-judgmental while husbands happen to be judgmental.

See above - she did not hurt anybody in having that much discussed threesome so she is quite within the range of norm in not having regrets.

Please provide some examples as I have not noticed such a pattern and my pattern recognition skills are quite good naturally, plus, I hone them daily at work. So I am puzzled and would like to see examples.

Responsibility, first and foremost, has to do with not hurting others. See above for the discussion of that. So again you are misusing words. Also, when you talk of your "values", you really mean "views", not "values". You wanted somebody who shared your views on sex, which is fine in and of itself, but you should at least try to stick to the dictionary meanings of the words you use.

I take it back regarding being petty etc. This is not a major concern. The major concern seems to be a very peculiar thinking process, to be addressed below.

There are broad general principles and no advice. You are looking for a prescription, it seems. There is no prescription - it is not akin to "if you spend 150 minutes doing cardio every week, you will be much better off".

So the general issue that stands out the most is that with the thinking process. People who are qualified to diagnose and address such issues are neuropsychologists who have a PhD in psychology (MD's, MFT's, and others have not been trained to do that). If you have insurance, I would get a complete neuropsychological evaluation. I cannot quite see what it is because I lack professional training, but I sense that it is very unusual. It seems to me that you lack abstract thinking abilities to an extreme degree, and in that sense, any discourse about morality with you is useless because such discourse requires the ability to think in abstract terms and to apply general principles to specific situations. I am not criticizing you in any way - I am just stating that what you have displayed is unusual (not as "bad" but just as "non-standard") and professional attention would be good to obtain. My guess is your way of thinking in concrete terms makes you are unable to process metaphors, see things and events from different angles, have some minimal sense of humor present (since there is no tragedy in the situation, at least some minimal sense of humor would be called for, normally), and, most importantly, see the big picture. Also, it seems that you have not incorporated any information from the real world that must have come your way in the course of your life. A lot of people have negative experiences being introduced to sex, and only a minority react the way you did. Had you processed and incorporated information from the real world, you would have said something along the lines of: "My introduction to sex was negative, and I responded to it by requiring ABC from my future partners, and although I realize that not everybody would have reacted the way I did, my reaction was important to me and I communicated my requirements to my would be wife." You did not do that, right? So your reaction seems the only possible reaction to you because it is YOURS, just as you assign your own meaning to commonly used words and believe that the meaning is correct because it is YOURS. This is unusual.

None of that makes you a bad person, of course.

That you do not believe in god makes it harder to comprehend your position on threesomes. People who belong to organized religions and regard certain texts as sacred would refer to something like "god created a man and a woman so that... " etc. etc. to justify the view that, say, attractions are allowed only to opposite sex and sexual encounters are only allowed between two people. You are not claiming that, and, therefore, your view that any sexual encounter that involves more than two people is irresponsible is especially arbitrary.

Also, to the extent that verbal exchanges can be described as intimate, you were having a verbal threesome with the wife and her gf when you signed up for the app that delivers three way texting (whatever that app is). So, in your mind, something is so special to sex that a verbal threesome is OK but a sexual threesome is not, right? What is it?

Also...

- your wife was raped - you called it "rape"

- you had some very negative experience in the beginning that you never named on this thread.

So it appears that your experience was even worse than rape in that you cannot even talk about it. Yet, normally people consider rape the worst kind of sexual experience.

So something does not compute.