I recently realized that I was in a self-imposed rut, ignoring decent messages like I ignore the last episode of Battlestar Galactica.

A little while ago, when I was feeling quite down about one of my recent dates, my father suggested that I stop dating so many men in STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering, mathematics). He posited that men in those fields were eggheads with subpar social skills, and I’d have to venture outside to find well-rounded (and therefore, more datable) men. My first reaction was, “But I’ve got the most in common with them! Math and science are what I do– what I work on, read about for recreationally, teach, discuss with my best friends- how could I be with someone who isn’t also involved?” I thought about this some more, though, and realized that I had some deep-seated prejudices against non-scientists. This post is primarily to help myself work through those, and to discuss how I’m actively trying to branch out on my OKC dates. It will also hopefully illuminate some of the odd, specific, and irrational ways people weed through profiles.

I don’t think that someone’s field of study necessarily determines their potential to be a fantastic date or the extent of their social skills. So my reason for reevaluating my criteria isn’t that I think better men are found in other fields. I just think it’s important that I don’t ignore interesting, exciting potential mates (wow, I just used “exciting” and “potential”-the electricity words just keep coming inadvertently!) just because they’re not scientifically inclined.

My first boyfriend now has the keys to a particle accelerator. My 1.5 college boyfriends were a physics major and a computer science major who worked in web development. In fact, I have only been in a relationship with one person who didn’t go on to major in a science, and only for a month. Perhaps oddly, I was not always involved in the sciences/math; I was heavily into the humanities (philosophy, English and history) in high school and only switched in college because my school was too easy to take seriously otherwise. But, perhaps as a result of my school, I suspect I’ve started to carry around the notion that anyone who spends their time writing poetry rather than code must not be that bright. I don’t logically agree with that statement, but I’ve certainly been acting on it when it comes to choosing who to write to/reply to on OKC!

Until recently, I would actually check someone’s OKC profile to see if they were likely to know more than five elements of the periodic table. Even people who wrote thoughtful messages that I quite enjoyed were subject to this scrutiny- and as soon as I saw “actor”, “artist”, or “writer”, I ran the other way. I was a bit more neutral towards people in careers/fields that are somewhere between hard science and art, such as law, psychology or business. But I still felt some tension!

Part of it is my desire to be with someone masculine and powerful- I fear that if I were married to an artist, I’d end up being the provider for both of us, and for some reason I find that a bit repulsive. But, I’m not looking to get married right now. Also, it’s not always that black and white- some people with liberal arts degrees go on to fantastic careers, and I don’t mean that just in terms of a livable income. I also suspect I have the misguided leaning that science and math are more “masculine” than the humanities, and therefore men who shirk them are less dominant. The bottom line is, I think I’ve been judging the worthiness of OKC profiles based on an illogical, incorrect and overly discriminatory criterion.

I decided to confront my prejudice head-on by going on dates with non-scientists. Yes, in case of bad conversation, I wouldn’t be able to fall back on a discussion of how the Big Bang Theory was named by an opponent in an attempt to belittle the concept (one of my favorite facts! Also, Planck hated the implications of his theories for the wave-particle duality controversy…). And if we went stargazing, I’m not sure he’d be thinking of the majesty of the origin of the cosmos in the same terms I would be. But that doesn’t mean I couldn’t enjoy the moment with him, or that he wouldn’t have something brilliant or meaningful to add. We’d probably have different reservoirs of conversation- but that’s not such a bad thing, right?

A graduate of the local art student asked me out for coffee after a few articulate, insightful and clearly intelligent OKC messages. I gladly accepted. I’ll be honest- the date was memorable in a very odd way. He was open-minded, funny, and relaxed- but he talked like a stereotypical high person, reeked of incense, and told me about his theory that the Great Pyramids were brought by aliens. It was a fun date by any standards, but my sexual attraction was in the negatives.

I tried again, though, and I’m awfully glad I did. I’m now seeing someone who is a published writer as well as an evolutionary science enthusiast (he studies creative writing and is pursuing a zoology minor). I don’t think I would have given him a chance a few months ago, even though he was the highest match percentage I’ve met so far, because of his heavy artistic bent. It’s actually really cool- we have great conversations because we’re both interested in hearing a completely foreign way of conceptualizing things! Being around him helps me free up and be more poetic, nuanced, and creative. We’ve been writing a funny song together (which I CANNOT post here, it is FAR too dirty, but it involves albino babies, Jesus and gay men), and we went dancing last night at an Irish music contra-dance party in a church basement- something I’ve never tried before!

To an extent, I’m still struggling with some of my prejudice. But the point of OKC dating is not to find the man I’ll settle down with, it’s to enjoy making connections with other people and just seeing where things go. I think it’s worthwhile to try dating someone who I enjoy being around and makes my life richer, even if- no, maybe it’s better to say, especially if, they’re a little out of my comfort zone.