然而，他也提到，一些尝试性的、模棱两可的欲望被组合在一起，来解释这种欲望，然后随着这些欲望的转变而逐渐发展。因此，他得出结论，这些欲望在很大程度上依赖于对语境的解释(Wilkerson &Khan, 2009)。威尔克森的论证也基于两种不同的观点，即认识论和形而上学。根据认识论的观点，他认为性欲望肯定需要解释，否则人们就不会知道自己的性欲望。根据他的观点，当它是关于不需要解释的欲望时，它只指向一个事实，即性欲望可能有自我暗示的因素。因此，通过对这些观点的分析，可以看出，性的欲望不一定是不言而喻的，也并不意味着欲望不是自我暗示的。克劳迪娅•卡德(Claudia Card)认为，当谈到婚姻时，它意味着一个邪恶的制度。这是因为这一制度包括两个可预见的主要组成部分，即应受谴责的错误行为和不可容忍的损害。这两个部分互为因果关系。
However, he also mentioned that some tentative as well as ambiguous desires are grouped together to interpret such a desire and then gradually develop along with transform of those. So, he came to the conclusion that these desires are greatly dependent on the interpretations of the context (Wilkerson &Khan, 2009). The arguments of Wilkerson are also based on two different views, known as epistemic view and metaphysical view. As per the epistemic view, he stated that sexual desires definitely require interpretation otherwise people would not know their sexual desires. According to him, when it is about desires that do not require interpretations, it points towards only one thing which brings to the fact that the sexual desires might have self-intimating factors. So, by analyzing all these points, it can be mentioned that the sexual desires do not have to be necessarily self-evident and it also does not mean that the desires are not self-intimating. Claudia Card has argued that when it comes to marriage, it entails about an evil institution. It is because that this institution comprises two major foreseeable components, which are culpable wrongdoings and harm that is intolerable. These two components are causally linked with each other.
As per the study of Card, it is quite clear that marriage helps to meet both of these criteria. According to her, it is purely unjust as well as arbitrary when it is about the exclusion of LGBT categories from the marriage rights. She put light on the fact that marriage and the related legal institution itself is a riddled system full of injustice. So, different alternative forms associated with durable intimate partnership would be better for the society without the power invoked to the state (Nagel, 1997). Card simply put forward an issue of injustice in marriage which causes serious evil in the form of domestic violence. She wisely described that slavery is also an evil institution which was abolished from the society and it was an obvious foreseeable factor linked with violence. In line with her study, indispensable laws are surely preventive courses of action to end violence. However, here another fact should be kept in mind that law only can’t prevent violence. It is the power imbalance which allows violence and the institute creates it in relation to the underlying assumption of marriage which is very interesting. So, she came to the conclusion that marriage is patriarchal component and it is her underlying claim.