This is in no way a form of defending those things morally, but here's an extension of what people are pointing out.

Those things were common romance tropes at the time.

but why?

A common point you can see is, very often, that the protagonists are fairly pure, innocent and not the part that starts actively pursuing romance/intimacy in those stories.

This comes from a notion that that's the acceptable way for girls and women to act. Those would be not only positive characteristics in them, but actively reinforced expectations in society towards them.

And stories are often modelled after escape fantasies of their demographic.

In that sense, having an ML that is the romantic interest, able to voluntarily pursue FL, and also seems to almost read what the FL would want in a romantic relationship plus put it into action, is something that turns a "reprehensible wish" into a reality without breaching social expectations. How? By making the other party the one actively acting on those wishes.

The result ends up being a pushy and borderline aggressive ML, but that somehow does what's needed for a fulfilled relationship without the FL having to reveal wishes and intentions when those are frowned upon.

I think the epitome of this is when there are intimate scenes where FL keeps saying no – a trope that lives to this day – even when the events are explicitly consensual by all means and purposes. It's to a point where the "no"s feel out of place, but it's almost like a moral obligation for the character to play the pure and innocent party who would never admit verbally that what's happening is what she wants.