@JohnAllenson:
If your argument is that a long-standing trope of literature means a behaviour is acceptable…
There's also a long-running trope in literature and film that someone will fall in love with you if you rape them. (Part of the definition of Bodice Ripper romance and normative in Uke/Seme YAOI.)
Another involves falling in love with a kidnapper/man who keeps her hostage. (Beauty and the Beast)
Another involves falling in love with someone who is physically or mentally abusive. (Taming of the Shrew.)
I'm in support of the idea that it's better to try to date someone who is interested in you rather than someone who is not.
It's interesting to me that you chose YAOI. Did you know that almost all YAOI is written by women? There's a subgenre called SHOTA in which elementary school-aged children get into sexual relationships with adults (or peers). There's another niche genre dealing with infants. The lioness's share is, you guessed it, written by women.
Think about that for a second.
Mom's are writing love stories and/or rape scenarios involving children.
The overwhelming majority of this kind of fiction is the more mainstream YAOI, or Boy's Love. If you pay attention to it you'll see it's very heteronormative (because it's written by women for women).
Honestly, I would love to do a Ph.D. on the why but my point in bringing this up is that YAOI happens in a foreign culture. The other examples all happened across time in, what is essentially, a foreign culture.
I love dissecting literature and film but saying Beauty & The Beast represents rape culture, or worse, Stockholms's Syndrom is to put a political spin on a time and culture we can know nothing about. What I'm saying is a little different.
The Troubadours shot time's romantic arrow, which follows a direct path through Shakespear and your bodice rippers to today. Using Queer Theory and Intersectionalism is a fun intellectual exercise but it shouldn't inform politics and policy, should it? Art imitates life imitates art; not the art critic informs art to inform life to inform the critic.
What's missing in your idea is serendipity. You're essentially saying there's a code so that no one ever feels uncomfortable and everyone feels respected. One rejection means a lifetime ban. But life is risk! Without it there are no serenades, no awkward love letters, no acknowledgment that it's okay to obsess on a crush. I see this tendency as a move towards repression which sets us on target for a new Victorian Age with its very seedy underbelly of all the things we're not supposed to do.