I've been poking at Wikipedia, & it's stirred up all sorts of stuff from decades past.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_(love)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalric_romance
Romantic love begins from the basis that there is some sort of narrative storyline being followed, hence its derivation from High Medieval tales of brave knights going forth on quests --
Don Quixote is an intentional burlesque of 15th-century chivalric romance tales.
For centuries, marriage was almost entirely a matter of utility, whether for inheritance purposes at the upper end, or making babies & working together for the serfs. Romantic love seems to have evolved as a counterpoint to this, encouraging a poetic or affectional side that had no clear place in churchly marriage. So, from the beginning there's a basis for "committed" vs. "illicit" relationships -- which seems to say that romantic love inherently requires some degree of dishonesty.
There's a case to be made that "romance" purposely embraces components of irrationality & even absurdity. For instance, though the practices of "the cult of Romance" (as discussed in
The Hoax of Romance) seem intended to sublimate (rather than bury -- an important differentiation!) the "animalistic" sexual desires, modern notions of romantic love seems unable to exist without eroticism, particularly frustrated eroticism.
Thirty years ago, I wrote that "for most relationships, growth of deep connection stops when sex starts" -- or, as Ling Woo said on
Ally McBeal, "If I have sex with you, you'll go blind."
In many ways, romantic love works "best" when any deep emotional or intellectual closeness is heavily controlled.
Jealousy, rage, violence, passive aggression, punishment, humiliation, self-chastisement... none of these has any place in a loving relationship based upon a desire for self-understanding & a willing emotional/intellectual openness to understand others.
Yet they are components of romantic love.
Is that a bad thing? Dunno: there's people who find deep satisfaction in being thoroughly beaten, & I support them in enjoying their kinkiness, so I guess I'm fine with people turning off their rationality & indulging in romantic love.
...but I sometimes get a little short-tempered when people demand the right toplay out their little tragic melodramas... only to expect that, when the obvious conclusion of the skit is finally reached, they'll get all kinds of rewards... so that they can start the show all over again, possibly with some new dialogue & a few cast changes.
If people want to get flogged, then I say they should be free to enjoy it, so long as they don't demand special treatment because of their little owies.
(Ever notice how people whose lives are stereotype hackneyed melodramas are often the ones who natter on endless about how much they "hate drama"...?)