I have heard that scientists are the most non-romantic partners ever. Is it true?

That certainly is the stereotype. Note, I said Stereotype.
Please see this example from the TV show Big Bang Theory. Listen carefully to the language used. It is precise and technically correct. Well done.
Leonard and Leslie

Are husbands of scientists allowed to contribute to the conversation? What if someone has been in a long-term relationship with a scientist, but they have not signed a marriage contract?

Do you consider medicine a science? Can the significant-others of medical personnel also chime in?

Yes, of course Hearcat.

Someone who is analytical by nature and believes strongly in what can be measured will just need to find proof that romance is necessary or beneficial. After that though, I would imagine they would be generally as dedicated to romance as anyone else.

If needing reason or proof makes them on the whole unromantic to someone, then I guess that would fit. But I think you’d find someone of the most over the top, grand gestures of love are created by people who have just been shown that they are appreciated and beneficial to their relationship.

See also: Is MIT the most romantic place on Earth?

I am not a scientist, however, personalty type does impact ones relational approach.
I am rational thinking female, very analytical and of the same temperament as many scientists, engineers, architects.
Most women are feeling types, and while I do have a very warm and caring side I am not a romantic. I like to DO romantic things in a relationship, being highly creative I take great pleasure in coming up with fun, silly, novel and creative things to do, but I am not a romantic in the sense that I do not believe in soul mates, that someone else will bring you everlasting happiness, ( that’s an inside job as always ) or that love is everything in life.

I also do want to be suffocated and cuddled and fawned over 24/7. Gah! lol
I think women of my temperament have a much harder time in relationship because most men want an uber nurturing, ego stroking female and I am not that girl. I am very affectionate and sexual in the right circumstance but I do not want the pressure of conforming to the stereotypical sweet little thing programming so many men still hold dear to their hearts in my generation.

I am very loyal in my relationships but don’t expect me to worship you, not gonna happen. lol
Studying personality theory has been very enlightening as to the personality dynamics of self and others. I strongly suggest it for all relationships to foster better understanding of how we all naturally show up. As a matter if fact, I have a date at 1p.m. today, with an analyst….it will be interesting. haha

One of my best friends is a scientist guy. He is extremely talented in physics and mathematics, but he’s also about the only person I can speak to about literature and deep thoughts. Ehm.. I’m not sure what I am trying to say. What is romance anyway?

It’s impossible to generalize. Plus, people define romantic differently. I would say my dad is more romantic than my mom and he is the scientist.

I think scientists are analytical and tend not to spend money frivolously and that can come across as not romantic. I am not a scientist, but I am fairly analytical and I don’t want my husband to spend $100 on flowers. They just die in a week or two. I’d rather have a more practical gift. He felt stringly about getting me an engagement ring, I wanted to wait until we could afford one I really loved. We compromised on a zirconia when we first got engaged. He thinks, or he thought, a lot of the romantic traditions somehow showed he was a good man I think. Showing his affection in ways society expects. I assume with ther women he received a lot of oohs and aahs when he did this sort of romantic stuff.

False, Dr.Frankenstein “built” a bride for his creation, how romantic is that?
Stephen Hawking drools all over his dates & whispers sweet robotics in their ear.

No.
<- software developers

I think people trained to be analytical and objective are far less susceptible to the marketing ploys and stereotypes involved with the romance industry. They also are notorious for neglecting the necessary skills involved in the successful wooing of women. Imagine, if you will the objective answer to “does this dress make my behind look fat?” Now the smarter women among us, particularly those who have had experiences being routinely burned by suave smooth “captain romance” types, realize the benefits and huge advantages of latching onto those guys with the white socks and pocket protectors. To begin with, the likelihood of being lied to or scammed by such characters is remote, and the creatures exhibit far less resistance to the “training” which all women believe necessary to perfect a suitable mate. There is also the peace of mind generated with the security of knowing that when it comes to shopping the Geek bazaar, “what you see is nearly always what you get”

@stanleybmanly Thank you! Please teach young women this. They just don’t know.

I’ll have to do more research.

@ucme well, built it and then destroyed it in front of the monster before bringing her to life. Just sayin’

@LuckyGuy . Young women don’t have a clue. They are more mature than most boys their age, but that isn’t saying much. Let’s face it, women are wired for “romance”. The most worthless and visibly disreputable man can with a minimum of flash and tactical lying cut a wide swatch through the A list of girls in your Junior class yearbook. But here’s the revelation. The romance game is basically one of DECEPTION. This is what make up, pushup bras, toupees, breast augmentation, shoes with lifts, leg waxings, face lifts and tummy tucks (the list is endless) are all about, and this is why the assholes harvest all the great girls. Frankly, young girls have been reared and conditioned to chase illusions. This being the case, anyone trained to be objective and analytical should have an inherent advantage in devising successful strategies for pursuing women..

@BhacSsylan You’re a glass half empty patron aintcha?

If you have ever read any of Richard Feynman’s collections of his life adventures (which I recommend as a fun read), you would know that he was highly idiosyncratic, so he may not be considered a typical scientist. Still, I found this story to be rather moving. Also, check out the last few paragraphs of this, which seems like something straight out of Big Bang Theory.

Could it be simply that techy guys tend to want substance and reciprocity. Personally I find shallow romantic gestures and courtship exhausting and unnecessary especially if it is only a cultural expectation.

Absolutely NOT true. My boyfriend is a professor of physics and an experimental physicist and he is the most romantic man I’ve ever known. He is so good that he is slowly chipping away my stone hard cynic shell and exposing the ooey, gooy romantic I had built walls around. Not only that, but he is building the most touching relationship with my son, who has been traumatised by his own father, so trust is very hard to come by with Little Man, but he has earned trust and is slowly winning genuine affection and I am the luckiest girl in the world and I love my nerdy scientist.

Oh.. Edit… I’m older and am rather nerdy myself, so when I say he is romantic, I mean he can write physics equations and relate them to how much loves me… and I get and appreciate his jokes and he sends me a message when he wakes up and when he goes to bed, and when I wake up and when I go to bed (there is an 8 hour time difference). Romance is not shallow gestures learned from a book. It is remembering things that show he was paying attention and cares. I absolutely banned Valentines Day. We traded nerdy cards over Facebook, but that was it, because expensive gifts on a day you HAVE to isn’t romance. It’s exploitation. Honestly, I worry that I’m not romantic enough for him.

I wrote the following on facebook during one of his stays with me here….
I love that look on your face when you think you’ve told me something that might shock me and all I do is smile and nod and say, ‘I know.’ I love how you can read my face like a book and know when to check if I’m ok. I love how you brought my son a glass of water at quarter to three in the morning when he woke up with a fever. I love how open and honest you are and how you make coffee in the morning, (even though you don’t drink it; it’s for me.) I love how you indulge my silliness in a way neither of us end up looking foolish. (well, almost….) I love it when we talk about your work and you don’t look surprised or annoyed when I ask questions and can get back on the subject after I’ve sidetracked the conversation for 10 minutes. I love that you flew over half a continent and an ocean to be with me and my son for a week, and I’m even going to love it when you wake up this morning and make small noises of protest when you realise that I let you sleep in.

I was thinking about this Q again and I realized that the list I had in my head for what I was looking for in an SO did not include that they be romantic. It never occured to me.

@cazzie I’m in love!!! If you ever decide to dump him, please give him my number. :-)

@cazzie I am so happy to see your post! I had not read it until I saw @LuckyGuy‘s comment. I know you went through a lot the last few years. I’m glad to see you met somone who makes you happy.

Hey I’m a scientist and I fucking love my girlfriend

My mom’s besty married a scientist named Gary and although I though he was cool with his telescopes, Rose said he was emotionally unavailable and they divorced.

I always thought scientist were eccentric, but it it’s of any consultation I dated a scientist lady for a few weeks and it was one crazy trip. Sadly she went to the Congo. I received a dear John letter a few months latter.

I’ve heard that Englishmen have them beat, for being unemotional and reserved. Ha-ha!

@Skaggfacemutt I knew a man from England and he was probably the second most romantic guy….

Well, generalizations are never correct, anyway. :)

Never say never. I would say they are correct a lot of the time, just not all the time, and should never be used to make assumptions or presumptions about people.