I keep thinking about this question, and the reason I say it is a bullsh!t question, is not because the question was asked in the first place, but because it isn't an either/or answer.
Kind of like when someone asks me... "Is the glass half full or half empty?" The answer will depend upon how thirsty I am.
When you say, "If I was completely loved by a man, but sexual desire was absent... would that be an acceptable state of relational existence for me..."
It depends on the R. I find it completely acceptable if the man completely loving me without sexual desire was my father or a ... brother. Not only is it acceptable, it is appropriate.
If I was completely loved by a man, but sexual desire was absent, and that man were a friend of mine or the family, THAT would be acceptable.
To be sexually desired by a man who does not completely love me is acceptable if I am single and I have made the choice to have some lovely, romper room sex. No strings attached.
Or... let's say I'm in an arranged marriage... I'd rather have the sexual desire than the love. (Love can come/grow as time goes by).
To be completely loved by a man, with sexual desire absent, in a LTR, for ME, is unacceptable. It's an important distinction in the "two halves of a whole" thing.
So. That's why I thought this was a bullsh!t question.
