Hmm, interesting, re-reading BG&E at the moment.
However, generally I dump any part of Nietzsche that has to do with women (except the ‘what if truth was a woman?’ section) for the purposes of a critical engagement with his philosophy. Whilst I acknowledge that he is speaking with webbed-words, that there is more going on here than purely how man relates to woman (in fact, I may use this section the next time I have to speak about the Will to Power, that third section is… interesting. And I use that word too much)… however every time he invokes the concept of the feminine in his argument I am wary as his use of it is twisted by his complete ignorance towards women.
To sum up that clumsy and brief stream of consciousness. I find that section interesting, useful possibly, but shy away from using (if not examining) it critically.
Btw my translation is slightly different: the last bit reads “A third, however, has not even here got to the limit of his distrust and desire for possession: he asks himself whether the woman, when she gives up everything for him, does not perhaps do so for a phantom of him; he wishes first to be known thoroughly, indeed, profoundly well known; in order to be loved at all he ventures to let himself be found out. Only then does he feel the beloved one fully in his possession, when she no longer deceives herself about him, when she loves him just as much for the sake of his devilry and concealed insatiability, as for his goodness, patience and spirituality”
In a way this section harks back to the very start of the book when he asks how anything could arise in its opposite, since possession is an expression of dominance arising from a non-dominant action, exposure to gain control…
… I may have more to say when I’ve finished reading the book again 
. I’m tempted to write something up on it as I keep encountering philosophers musing on love as I read…