Oh please! That's what an idealist thinks, but I'm not an idealist. For love is arguably a necessary condition, but it is not a sufficient condition. I easily fall in and out of love; but for anything to go past that, a man's got to prove to me that he's worth it and has something to offer past that mere feeling. I'm just not an idealist. . . .
Madam, thou hast awaken my desire to do intellectual battle. Begin.
Idealistic conceptions of reality or a resorting to a life of metaphysical understandings ungrounded in epistemic stoicism or even soundness, herein what you seem to conceive of as idealism is not so easily reduceable to necessary-and-sufficient conditions.
Here is what you miss with this reductionism:
If one attempts to systematize reality into a logically coherent pattern of understanding, one opens up to the problem of infinite disjuction (and/or sets arising from creative infinity due to determinism or choice, that has little relevance), conjuction, and the derivation of formal sets that defy formally proven outcomes or propositional statements.
If you thus call a narrow conception as "realism" or at least a negation of what you term idealism as somehow unbefitting a perceived reality (a weak denial, I admit), then you set labels to internal dynamics that cannot be limied to mere words and logical systems.
With the inadequacy and self-reference of logic (problem of epistemic grounding, the myth of the given, etc), understandings of love no longer can be held to a purely necessary/sufficient argumentative format as that never fully reaches what love is.
If you say that you fall in and out of love, madam, then you know not what love is, as it is an everfixed mark, unconditioned by your own limited understanding (and my own) of what it means to be human.
Every human is "worth it". Do you love?
Cheers !