Maybe I just haven't loved anyone enough, but 'out of sight, out of mind' has applied to human suffering and death for me, even for people I know personally, like, and will be sad if they're gone.

There's a difference to me between knowing on an abstract level that someone is regularly doing dangerous things, and actually seeing them putting themselves in danger with my own eyes. At least when I know there's nothing I can do about it, I find the former easy enough to ignore.

It's like a lot of people believe in their head that global warming poses an existential threat, but don't actually feel like their lives are in danger like they would if they're in a war and keep seeing millitary aircraft flying by overhead. It doesn't mean they'll be any less screwed by the danger or believe they'll hate the outcome less than if they were bombed or something instead, but they can just ignore it simply because they're not being reminded of it constantly

But yeah idk, it does feel like every instance I've seen of this kind of character isn't really written from a perspective of author empathy; like the author is thinking 'what could a love interest plausibly do in this situation to cause drama?' instead of 'what would I do if I were the love interest in this situation?'

I think this is more understandable played totally straight in fantasy/power/really dramatised stories. Say, superheroes (who aren't invincible) or massively fictionalised types where there really is a high risk of death and the job really can be unreasonably dangerous.

A lot of time when this trope comes up, while it's often framed as "you're living a too dangerous of a life" there's often a lot more to it, especially with careers like police officers in more realistic settings. Massively long hours, underpayment compared to some areas of the private secure, trauma from experiences and a culture that doesn't really look upon those things well can all put a strain on a relationship causing it to break down. This also often comes up as a response to a serious injury/trauma already. If someone you love has already been shot on the job, of course you're then going to be more worried about it.

And I think sometimes, just because someone is doing the right thing overall, doesn't make it right for a relationship. I also think that a lot of the time when it gets to the point of someone worrying that much, or forcing someone to make a decision between their job or you rather than talking, the relationship is already over. Or at least needs some space. The partner clearly either has some issues they need to work out and staying in the relationship will probably not help, so space and recovery is needed (especially in cases where it's a reaction to a previous incident) and ultimatums are generally a sign we're too far along and communication has totally broken down already. Sometimes, just because you love someone, doesn't mean a relationship is healthy or sustainable.

I do absolute agree though that the idea that you can simply walk away from someone and stop caring (assuming we're not in some kind world where magic/science makes it possible) enough to magically cure the worry, is always an annoying thing to see in this trope. I think a lot of the time it's used as a way to cut characters/actors easily (in my experience from shows I've watched). But I do also think, people move on. Like any break up, yeah, you probably would worry about them a lot at the start (the same way someone in a dangerously possessive relationship freshly broken up would have lingering feelings from that) but would (hopefully) start to heal. I mean, my sister was constantly worrying me going out and being irresponsible and never telling me if/when she was coming home but then she moved out, and I still felt the worry of not knowing, but slowly I started to move on an accept that I couldn't control it and she wasn't someone I need to worry about constantly anymore (even if she probably does still do stupidly irresponsible dangerous things) and I can't spend my entire life worrying over whether she's going to be ok or we'll get a call one day that she's gone. (I mean this girl once ran home to ask if she was going to get arrested for punching a guy who tried to grab her off the streets and drag her into the back of his car after following her)

People who engage in... let's just call it "negative behavior"... don't want to be saved. They want immerse themselves in this negative behavior and drag the people around down with them. You can't do anything about it. Your sole job IS to saw off your leg to escape the bear trap because if you don't you're going to Hell with them.

However the reason we create fiction is because reality is pretty shit. That's why people love it when Protagonist-Kun backs down when Best Girl reminds him of the power of friendship. So if you're wondering if your story can get away with this bit of unreality, yes it can.

Ngl I got lost in the text... although it seems you're passionate about this subject. I have asked myself this question tho... both fictional and real life :v

But eh...... I leave it up to what I feel like writing. I'm completely fine with people walking away and everything they went through is magically gone. In fact, I think you can probably write an interesting relationship out of that since there ARE people like that in real life. Could be a coping mechanism I dunno.

My favorite characters with this sorta dynamic are Elisa and Ken from Street Fighter (she's straight up fine with Ken just leaving... like she was kidnapped... pregnant... without him knowing... and she couldn't care less), Betty Brant and Spider-Man (Betty was best girl, don't @ me), the Blue Beetle and his red head girlfriend from the Charlton era (she felt like an "f you" to the whole Betty Brant character with her crying that Ted Kord was just walking off potentially doing something dangerous, but then when she found out that he was the Blue Beetle she was like "Oh fr? Nevermind then. Carry on. In fact, I'm going to push you further in this dangerous life. That's right.... I'm your backbone", The Atom and ex-wife (She moved on and married a cop, but she seems to care more when Atom is in danger).

I can think of a few reasons why Love Interest leaves Adrenaline Rush (I'm trying to keeps this gender-neutral).
- It's early in the relationship, and LI decides this is not the life they want.
- The relationship is established, but on the rocks. The danger element pushes it over the edge.
- LI has other people to worry about, like children. AR's being in constant danger doesn't allow them to create a stable and safe home for the children.
- LI feels like AR does whatever they want (or think is right) and disregards what LI says and feels.
- AR's lifestyle impedes LI from living their own life. LI is stuck as an accessory to the hero AR and can't move forward with their own goals because everything AR does is "more important."

You can genuinely care about someone while also recognizing that you aren't good together. It's not throwing it all in the garbage to accept that the two of you have different life goals and aren't meant as life partners. The time you spent together means something; it wasn't wasted.

In real life relationships, one person shouldn't make a unilateral decision to switch to a dangerous career. Being in a couple means sharing big decisions.

Which is the truly tragic aspect of some of these plot lines.

Yes, but it's different. In a couple, you have responsibility to each other. If you go your separate ways, that person becomes a smaller part of your life. You worry, but in a less encompassing way.

I can understand the anger if the couple is already well-established and then one of them decides (on their own) to take on a high-risk lifestyle because that does affect both members of the couple (and any existing or future dependents).
In some cases, I feel like the high-risk character isn't really choosing that lifestyle to save the world; they are just trying to escape the mundanity of everyday life. In doing so, they are tossing all the real-world responsibility on to their partner (like laundry, filing taxes, keeping up connections with family and friends, etc.)

On the other hand, if you fall in love with someone who already has a high-risk lifestyle, you have a choice whether or not you want to be involved. You shouldn't be angry if the relationship is exactly as advertised.
(I may be unromantic, but I would leave that relationship before it even started.)

Certain lifestyles aren't suitable for long-term relationships. I'm saying this in regards to pop culture superheroes, spies, etc. Real-world police officers and firefighters, for instance, have a reasonable chance of surviving to retirement. There's a reason that James Bond is with a different woman (or two) in every movie.

It is fiction remember that without conflict and pure realism the story would end fast. Also people read fiction to escape from real life problems.

Speaking realistically most people wouldn't fall in love with people who constantly put their life at risk unless it is a reasonable thing like a sport or the circus. It will still be hard to be with them as their passion is that particular activity. So usually their partners tend to be people who understand your activity. If you swim with sharks studying marine life you are usually with a person who has similar interests and understands said risks.

Now lets go to an extreme example and say you risk your life for a dumb reason like getting likes on youtube or being in jackass. If you love the person you wouldn't leave them unless it puts your kids under stress or they start missing many couple activities you asked them to attend.
In those cases your partner will leave you after your actions start accumulating.

Last but not least not everyone can be with a person that does harm to themselves and prefer to not see it.
A good example are drug addicts. Some people will stay with you trying to help you recover while others will give up after trying and seeing you don't even try to get over your addiction.

Overall I would say it is mainly used as a plot to start drama or make the reader tense and inversed on the story.