Why not discuss love openly today, on Valentine’s Day? The calendar itself doesn’t ban romance, yet the holiday that lives on February 14 often feels out of place. The phenomenon behind the celebration sounds less clear with each passing year, and love itself seems to morph into new forms that demand fresh words. Some forms emerge, only to feel misnamed or misunderstood by those trying to name them. Perhaps the root issue lies not in the content but in the language we use to describe it.
Public figures have weighed in on Valentine’s Day. Patriarch Kirill called the celebration a Western import that, despite noble intentions, promotes relationships far removed from a true, enduring love. This raises questions: what kind of love does the day represent? Is it genuine affection, or something more manufactured and transient? And why does the West influence these conversations so strongly?
Efforts to soften this image led to proposals for a new holiday, yet the reception was mixed. Mikhail Vetrov suggested naming a Day of Friendship and Mutual Respect on February 14. The public reaction tangled humor with questions about the exact meaning of friendship and loyalty. Some voices even joked about the phrase friendship with benefits, revealing how modern discourse can twist language and expectations. The idea of moral guidance for young people collided with real-life dynamics and the messy realities of relationships.
Beyond politics and policy, language itself presents a significant barrier. If asked to define love, many people struggle to offer a coherent answer. Dating apps reinforce this ambiguity with clichés: seekers of serious relationships, guarantees of commitment, and the avoidance of wasted time. Personal histories—past hurts, betrayals, and disappointments—shape present choices, sometimes more than conscious ideals, and linger like a stubborn fog over every new connection.
Open relationships, for some, appear as a modern solution to desire and independence. Yet this raises questions about freedom, obligation, and the social codes that govern intimacy. How does one reconcile personal autonomy with mutual respect? The law, morality, and everyday politeness all play their roles in shaping how people form and maintain bonds. People enter interactions willingly, with unspoken conditions that help them navigate expectations. And the notion of wanting nothing in return turns out to be a practical impossibility for most, a reflection of deeper fears and past traumas—resentment, fatigue, and the perpetual quest for safety in love.
When personal history, social norms, and biology collide, emotional perception can feel blurred. Some describe society as becoming insulated in bubbles, where two individuals meet, their needs align, and the relationship proceeds. It is not a personal attack; it is a biological impulse that at times reduces love to a physical or medical dimension. Yet the essence of love remains elusive. People sense there is a real phenomenon behind connection, even if the theoretical framework struggles to capture it.
Romantics often insist that love is a vivid, movie-like experience. They point to stories of devotion, triumph over obstacles, and the belief that love can conquer all. Critics, however, remind us that art frequently centers on conflict, drama, and even tragedy. Some argue that ideal love in art is an illusion, yet many still yearn for peace, trust, and quiet joy within real relationships. The question persists: can true love exist where there is steady calm and mutual respect, without the fireworks of drama? The author hopes for a hopeful answer to that question.
Some observers frame the current moment as a social crisis—selfishness, consumer culture, and a gradual erosion of family structures. Yet the truth may lie less in grand crises and more in a culture of relentless pursuit. People yearn for a return to what felt meaningful, seeking to restore a balance between desire and responsibility. History shows cycles of reinvention: the late 19th and early 20th centuries saw sweeping shifts in ideas about love and partnership, as thinkers proposed everything from spiritual unions to revolutionary takes on sexual ethics. Those efforts reflected a longing to redefine love in ways that felt authentic to the era, though many ideas eventually faded or evolved. The present moment mirrors that same restless curiosity, with old certainties challenged and new possibilities emerging on the horizon.
Today, the impulse remains the same: to discover a form of love that endures, even as the language and expectations around it keep shifting. The pursuit may be ongoing, but the core desire to connect honestly, kindly, and with mutual respect endures. And perhaps, amid the noise of competing ideas, the simplest truth will eventually return to the surface: love is worth pursuing—genuinely, openly, and with care.
The author presents a personal viewpoint that may not align with every editor’s stance, and readers are encouraged to consider these reflections as part of a broader conversation about love and relationship norms.