There is practically no romance literature aimed at male audience, and the little there is, is not aimed at hetero male audience. Why this should be so is an interesting question, which so far I haven't been able to satisfactorily answer. Answers like "for historical reasons" and "women are biologically more interested in emotions" or "men just don't care so much about  romance they are more into sex" are too vague, even if they were true. It's an absurd thing to claim that "men just don't care so much about romantic relationships", because if this was a fact, our entire society would be shaped differently, monogamous hetero marriage would not be the typical relationship model. But anyway. I just had a revelation about the precise reason for romance literature being women's literature, after coming across a few articles about emotional labour.

Emotional labour (at least in the context relevant to romance lit.) is figuring out, processing, responding attentively to other's emotions and managing their and own emotions in such a way that situation at least stays stable. And this, for biological or sociological or whatever reason seems to fall on women's shoulders, particularly in man-woman situations. If this situation can or should be changed is not relevant to the fact that currently it is so. And that's where romance literature comes in. It is, very simply, compensation for emotional labour. Reading romance allows the reader to kick back and enjoy someone else figuring out, processing, responding attentively and improving emotional situations. That's why the happy end is so important - reader herself does not need to do emotional work after finishing the book to reach equilibrium.

Most memorable portion of Florence L. Barclay's classic romance Rosary is quite early in the book, when Jane and Dalmain have fallen in love, but only Dalmain understands this and Jane is blissfully unaware, thinking Dalmain is about to marry another girl. She is naively confident in her belief that they are only exceptionally good friends, and convinces herself the happiness she experiences with Dalmain is because of their shared interest in music. There is a sort of vindictive pleasure in this situation, Jane unaware of the way she torments poor Dalmain with her insensitivity to his feelings. She gets to be the dumb one, whose own feelings are explained to her. I think this is the emotional gratification part of the book even more than the romantic happy end.

I think I need to test my theory by reading some modern romance with emotional labour glasses on. I'm more drawn to pre-WW2 romance (except for sci-fi), because of the melodrama, but what I would not suffer for research!