The reason I’m going with “turning” (or “alliance” is another option) is because it makes more sense in many ways:
I think I've decided the LXX rendering of teshuqa ("turning) is the best and that "desire" is a slant put on by later translators.
Dawn, I'm going to be blunt. This is a really bad idea. The fact is that every single standard professional Hebrew lexicon renders it 'desire', and for good reason. That's what it means. The LXX is a Greek translation of an unknown Hebrew text. It has its uses, but defining Hebrew words is not one of them. If anything, it's the LXX which frequently puts inaccurate slants on Hebrew words. There's no massive conspiracy between the authors of the standard professional Hebrew lexicons. They're right. That's what the word means.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Makes more sense to who? On what grounds?
1) “Desire” is a subjective word with negative connotations...
As when Jesus said 'With desire I have desired to eat this feast with you'?
...it is a fallacious idea to suggest that in marriage (especially marriage between two believers) Scripture is saying that a woman’s desire toward her husband is no stronger than his toward her. Surely it is totally mutual, and generally, equal.
Regardless of what we think marriage ought or ought not to be, in this case we need to sit down and decide what the Scripture is actually saying, and then adjust our thinking accordingly. We can't just say 'Well all the professional lexicons say X, but I don't like that idea so I'll make up my own which suits me'. I don't see anything here which says that a woman's desire towards her husband is no stronger than his toward her. But that aside, a husband or wife's desire for the other will wax and wane at many points throughout their marriage. It is probably rarely directly equivalent.
2) This verse – as a far as I can tell – has for some inexplicable reason - which has only just occurred to me in recent weeks – been used as the basis of marriage (including Christian marriage) for centuries. But why? I do not believe this verse was ever intended by God to be applied to all women for all time: it was specific to Eve in her situation.
Well how many women suffer pain in childbirth? That might provide some background as to whether this is all just talking about Eve.
Note that Eve was actually never expelled from the garden.
No, I didn't note that. Could you give me chapter and verse?
That God would REWARD Adam’s sin (as chief offender) and elevate him with rulership (for men for all time over their wives) is not how I understand God’s character as revealed in the Scriptures and through Jesus Christ..
I don't know anyone who says that Adam was rewarded for his sin by giving him rulership. Where would anyone get that idea?
3) I do not believe Christian marriage should be based on this interpretation that a woman’s desire is to her husband and he shall rule over her. This is not what Scripture teaches about marriage, yet this verse has been perceived to teach that by many.
What people use Scripture to say does not alter what it actually says. Saying 'Well on the basis that it means X, people have done wicked things, so it can't mean X' is invalid. Perhaps it does mean X, and people abused it. That doesn't change the fact that it means X.
4) The history of the word “teshuqa” in translations suggests that the meaning got changed to reflect the preconceived ideas of the male translators...
No. That is simply wrong. That is so far wrong it's maliciously wrong. It's an egalitarian rewriting of history, and knowingly so. It's completely off topic. The meaning of the Hebrew word hasn't been changed. What you're talking about is the way in which the English translation of the Hebrew word has been different over the years. Sure, one lunatic translated it as 'lust'. That's it. So what?
Therefore Pagnino’s word has been retained against the overwhelming authority of the ancient versions...
No it hasn't. No one translates it 'lust'. Pagnino's word has been overwhelmingly rejected.
...or so it seems to me.
No, not so it seems to you. You haven't examined any proximate Hebrew texts. You haven't studied the lexical history of the Hebrew word. Ironically you're doing exactly what Pagnino did, following a made up definition of the word because you prefer it to the real definition.
Bounce ideas around and explore by all means. But please, don't become irrational.