It's not melodrama, it's real life! It has to be meaningful, of course, and fit the plot, but come on, even cheesy romance books have their torridly-fit-for-each-other-by-fate cardboard cut-out characters fall out of sorts and mend up.
How many couples do you know, who are still together for over x+years and have gone through stuff as rough as your plot line? (well, there, obviously none, but you get my drift).
I've often been impressed by relationships that flirted with the line of romance or sexual attraction and either didn't cross it fully or backtracked, or broke it up.
Sunshine has a moment of strong sexual attraction that isn't resolved or much acted on, Kraken [mild spoiler]
A book, whose title escape me, which starred a LGBT couple getting in a tri-partite relationship, had the MC lost for years, adopted by a distant, different tribe, and marry in it, and then decide to break off and pursue rumors that his lost lovers are looking for him. It was heartbreaking, because it was such a tough choice...
Bennet Jackson has great tensions in city of stairs
, where the MC meets an old lover who is actually rather more into men and felt great deal of shame/pressure, etc.
There are plenty of books that sprinkle romance/attraction without making it simple and new or straight forward.
My point was that these books struck me more because the relations were gritty, realistic. With disappointment and treasons, and fall out and good reasons not to have sex any more and etc.
You can just make things hard–or not, but it's only my personal opinion that easy romances are less realistic, regardless of the gender.
If it makes sense for them, then why not? I don't think you should worry about their gender, but more on depicting the relation (which is freakish hard, I know, I'm not good either).