At the heart of the discussion on genuine relationships lies a profound dilemma: how to preserve the unbridled freedom of love when life dictates its own rules of commitment.

Balancing Freedom and Commitment in Love

At the heart of the discussion on genuine relationships lies a profound dilemma: how to preserve the unbridled freedom of love when life dictates its own rules of commitment. In the very beginning, sensual attraction provides a sensation of limitless freedom, where love does not require chains or rigid agreements, and is instead expressed in sincere, uninhibited relationships. However, the reality of modern life leaves no room for absolute freedom – commitments, whether in the form of a legal marriage or a moral sense of duty, are inevitable for maintaining trust between people once the initial passion fades.

The main point is that true love and true freedom go hand in hand, yet when confronted with life's challenges, they become the foundation for forming stable relationships. And although emotional experiences can grant us moments of total ease, the commitments made in the heat of passion act as an anchor, sustaining the relationship even when feelings change. It is important to understand that this contradiction between the natural freedom of love and the necessity of obligations creates a unique dynamic, allowing relationships to evolve and adapt over time.

Thus, when reflecting on the nature of love, we are faced with a choice – to follow a path where freedom is an integral part, or to accept responsibility for promises made in moments of inspiration. In either case, it is about finding a balance that allows our relationships not only to endure changes but also to develop deep mutual understanding and stability.

If love is true, should it be subject to any obligations?

The real essence of the question is that even if love is sincere, it raises conflicting expectations. On one hand, true love implies profound freedom, where no external chains or imposed obligations should be forced upon individuals. As noted in one statement, "Love cannot impose chains on a person; it necessarily implies freedom, because freedom and love are like two sisters" (source: link txt). This assertion emphasizes that the authenticity of love should not be measured by any long-term or externally imposed conditions.

On the other hand, in both social and personal contexts, certain obligations arise in connection with preserving trust and the stability of relationships. In particular, there is a view that marriage and fidelity can be structured in such a way that not only the experience of falling in love serves as a basis for the union, but also the commitments made in the name of love endure even when the initial emotions are no longer as intense. It is said, "The very popular idea nowadays that the only justification for marriage is the love between spouses leaves no room for a marital contract or wedding vows... and of course, the promise made when I was in love – and because I was in love – to remain faithful for a lifetime, commits me to be true even if the love has faded" (source: link txt). Here it is emphasized that even if the feelings change over time, the commitments taken in a moment of sincere love can retain their significance.

Thus, it can be said that the authenticity of love in itself may not require strict external obligations since it is based on mutual freedom and deep, genuine affection. However, in the real-life context, obligations—whether moral or social—can serve as a guarantee for the stability of relationships and a reminder of mutual responsibility. This contradiction between the freedom of love and the necessity of commitments remains one of the central themes for reflecting on the nature of relationships.