Before I continue, first a note on the translation. The translation is from Project Gutenberg, and I've made a few corrections to it already because it isn't always consistent or accurate. I overlooked the fact that it speaks of "[t]he passion of woman in its unconditional renunciation of its own rights", though. Although the German is ambiguous at this point, it should of course be "[t]he passion of woman in its unconditional renunciation of her own rights".

Now I will continue. I have, inadvertently thus far, split the aphorism into sections beginning and ending at a period followed by a dash. I will now consciously do the same. Nietzsche immediately continues:

"--Woman wants to be taken and accepted as a possession, she wants to be merged in the concept 'possession', 'possessed'; consequently she wants one who takes, who does not offer and give himself away, but who reversely is rather to be made richer in 'himself' by the increase of power, happiness and faith which the woman herself gives to him [literally: "as which the woman gives [or "offers"] herself to him"]. Woman gives herself, man takes her--I do not think one will get over this natural contrast by any social contract, or with the very best will to do justice, however desirable it may be to avoid bringing the severe, frightful, enigmatical, and unmoral elements of this antagonism constantly before our eyes. For love, regarded as complete, great, and full, is nature, and as nature, is to all eternity something 'unmoral'.--" (ibid.)

At this point I will only comment on the second sentence of this section. I think we would do well to compare this aphorism with Zarathustra's speech titled "Old and Young Women". As the kick-off to such a comparison, let us note that the actual speech is given to an old woman who asks him to speak to her of woman, and is given only after the following dialogue has occurred:

"As I went on my way alone today, at the hour when the sun declineth, there met me an old woman, and she spake thus unto my soul:
'Much hath Zarathustra spoken also to us women, but never spake he unto us concerning woman.'
And I answered her: 'Concerning woman, one should only talk unto men.'
'Talk also unto me of woman,' said she; 'I am old enough to forget it presently.'" (TSZ, First Part, trans. Common.)

In the light of our aphorism, it appears that one should only talk to men concerning woman because of the desirability of avoiding "bringing the severe, frightful, enigmatical, and unmoral elements of this antagonism constantly before our eyes." (Gay Science ibid.) I will say more about this later.

Nietzsche immediately continues:

"Fidelity is accordingly included in woman's love, it follows from the definition thereof; with man fidelity may readily result in consequence of his love, perhaps as gratitude or idiosyncrasy of taste, and so-called elective affinity, but it does not belong to the essence of his love,--and indeed so little, that one might almost be entitled to speak of a natural opposition between love and fidelity in man: whose love is just a desire to possess [Haben-Wollen], and not a renunciation and giving away; the desire to possess, however, comes to an end every time with the possession... As a matter of fact it is the more subtle and jealous thirst for possession in a man (who is rarely and tardily convinced of having this 'possession'), which makes his love continue; in that case it is even possible that his love may increase after the devotion,--he does not readily own that a woman has nothing more to 'surrender' to him.--" (ibid.)

And with this, the aphorism ends.

Let us first note at this point the contrast between woman's desire to renounce (Verzichtleisten-Wollen) and man's desire to possess (Haben-Wollen). Man's possessing consists in woman's renouncing. But woman's complete renunciation would be her complete surrender as opposed to mere devotion, let alone incomplete devotion. And the most subtle of men--Nietzsche himself, for example--understand that complete surrender is only woman's ideal, and not her reality. But this means that likewise, man's complete possession is his ideal, and not his reality!

At the very beginning of Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche famously likens truth to a woman. The philosopher, the seeker of truth, is then the man who desires to possess the woman truth. But truth, like woman, appears incapable of being possessed. And for an ardent seeker of truth, that is a great problem. Now according to the Preface to BGE, dogmatic philosophy--e.g., Platonism and Vedanta--solved this problem by asserting that the truth had been found (thus Vedanta means "the End of Knowledge"). This is like saying that a woman is possessed. Compare Lampert:

"According to Diotima [the alleged teacher of Plato's Socrates], erotic desire in mortals can move them upward from the immortality gained through the reproduction of children, to the immortality gained through the undying fame accorded poets and the founders of peoples, to the highest of all possible erotic satisfactions, the vision of unchanging being, of what always is, of the Good and the Beautiful and the True ([Plato] 210d-211b). Of the Boring." (Lampert, Nietzsche and Modern Times, pp. 383-84.)

In BGE 232, Nietzsche coins the phrase "the Eternal-Boring about woman", which is an allusion to a line from Goethe's Faust, "The Eternal-Feminine attracts us". What Nietzsche means there is that, when woman loses her artistry, she ceases to interest us, to intrigue us. But just as "the desire to possess [...] comes to an end every time with the possession", so the desire to renounce comes to an end every time with the renunciation... This is why the Platonic Idea is boring: it is the truth that has completely surrendered itself.

But what does our being bored by the woman who does not seek to devote and renounce herself signify? On Wikipedia, we find the following idea:

"Without stimulus or focus, the individual is confronted with nothingness, the meaninglessness of existence, and experiences existential anxiety. Heidegger states this idea nicely: 'Profound boredom, drifting here and there in the abysses of our existence like a muffling fog, removes all things and men and oneself along with it into a remarkable indifference. This boredom reveals being as a whole.'" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boredom#Philosophy 

Without her artful attempts to conceal it, the hole in woman's soul is laid bare:

"The vehemence with which Emma [Bovary, the eponymous heroine of Flaubert's Madame Bovary,] hurls herself into what to him is merely an affair baffles the seducer." (Harry Neumann, "Liberalism's Moloch".)

This is the same void that drove Hess to go down on his knees before Hitler, and Bukharin before Stalin:

"Hess' and Bukharin's realization of reality's 'black vacuity' makes it impossible for them to be Socratic or Christian gadflies, bearing witness to a truth, or search for truth, able to save men. Their only salvation is desperate willing of it ex nihilo." (Neumann, "Politics or Nothing!")

But it's precisely their willing that points to the fact that being as a whole is not nothing. Thus Leo Strauss wrote:

"The transformation of the world-denying way of thinking into the opposite ideal is connected with the realization or divination that the stone, the stupidity or the Nothing to which God is being sacrificed, is in its 'intelligible character' the will to power (cf. aph. 36)." (Strauss, "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil".)

There is a vision of unchanging being, of what always is, of the Good and the Beautiful and the True, that is not boring, and which is indeed the highest of all possible erotic satisfactions. It is the vision that the world is to all eternity the will to power. And what this means for heterosexual love is that a subtle man can love woman even though she's not "full", i.e., not completely devoted--or rather, precisely because she's not full, but overfull...

Nietzscheanism is neither optimism nor pessimism. It says: "The container, which is made of solid-state energy, is filled half with liquid-state energy and half with gaseous-state energy. In other words, there's a whole lot of energy and nothing to contain it."

Platonism can be understood as a teaching for unsubtle men--e.g., young men like Glaucon--that conceptually violates the truth by fundamentally changing it, changing its character from not completely graspable to completely graspable. But a subtle man does not want his woman fundamentally changed, but the way she is, and paradoxically by that very fact transfigures her: adoring her for her sincere passion for passion, and blessing her for the silliness of her feeling half empty.--