Is it true?
depends how you apply it.
Love is the desire to possess, maintain, and preserve a passion. Yet it is because of a deficiency that we have passion and desire. Then love is a compensation for emptiness and freedom, negative freedom, that is, the fact that one isn’t obligated to have that passion, the possibility that it not exist. When you love something or someone, you want an obligation that that object not change, that it always be provided, that it remain “as we want it.” We demand in our partner the devotion and compromise that is contradictive to their freedom, but we also want their devotion to come about by their free choice to insure the sincerity and freedom of their commitment. Perhaps this problem occurs when we misunderstand the nature of a “relationship” with a “person” and not an object or activity. The word “love” is very ambiguous. People love football, horses, spouses, pizza, beer, etc. It hard to determine what exactly “love” means other than an attraction and attempt to aquire and possess some object. If this be true, than the same theme might be applied to human relations. And, essentially, “love” would be a form of subordination and exploitation under these terms.
Schopenhauer once said that “love” was “a deception practiced by nature.” I add to this, “also a deception to nature.” It opposes everything that the natural human state of freedom stands for. “I love you,” but if you aren’t like you are when I said that, I might not love you anymore," one says.