Talk:Puriteen

Surely you're joking? This reads like something that should be on urban dictionary, not here. 81.101.245.6 (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Why is this a Wikipedia article? Most of this information comes from online articles. This sounds more like a personal opinion rather than a well researched phenomenon.

I'd vote to get this deleted. This isn't encyclopedic.

Hipotecas (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, this had got to be written by an older millennial or something. Fix this article. 104.162.74.104 (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

It's an article because the topic is the subject of significant coverage from multiple sources, both news media and academic publications. Do you have an issue with the way the article is worded or simply the existence of the subject itself? Silverseren^C 02:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Silver seren 'Puriteen' is either a linguistic epithet, which shouldn't amount to anything more than a wiktionary entry providing a definition and etymology of the term in my opinion, or if the phenomena it describes is real it shouldn't be categorized under this recent and not very popular term. Three citations is paltry and the article doesn't make the case that this is a coherent phenomena worthy of an encyclopedic entry. RevolutionXenon (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Seriously were calling TEENAGERS "prude" for not wanting to engage in sexual content???? And backing it up with barely 10 year old "evidence"???? This whole "article" sounds like a 13 year old calling someone frigid or belittling them for not wanting to kiss or have sex... For obvious reasons.... Lmao i see your ass hanging out pal. Raggedymandy (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems everyone thinks this is a bad article and definitely looks more like a section of a larger article then an article in it of itself

especially compared to the "Ok boomer" article 198.110.115.186 (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Please, Hornpipe2, explain how these two articles, which are still in use in the article right now even after your removal mind you, aren't about puriteens and the concept of the term itself. Specifically the articles Gen Z Are “Puriteens,” But Not For The Reasons You Think and Ah, to be young and scandalized: Who are these ‘puriteens,’ anyway?. Silverseren^C 00:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I take strong issue with the dual ideas being represented in the article: the term "puriteen" is being painted in the Wiki article as both "a specific kind of teenager who is uncomfortable with sex", but also, "all of Gen Z, who are averse to sex". Having a Statistics section at the bottom talking about the latter, when the top of the article is largely about the former, just muddies the issue. Are Gen Z less sexually active than other generations? Is that because they are all Puriteens? What about the non-Puriteen Gen Z people? What does that have to do with kids on the Internet?

You will note that (currently) nobody in the first part of the article says "Gen Z, on the whole, is having less sex": they are saying "these specific teenagers are pearl clutchers and that's bad". So a Statistics section does not connect at all here. Go make another article about Gen Z Sex Statistics and put it there instead, or explain very clearly how these two connect. Hornpipe2 (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The puriteen term was created to apply to Gen Z in the first place, as that is the generation being talked about, in comparison to Millennials. The main claim is that the group is "puritanical" in regards to both sexual activity and viewpoints on certain specific subjects, while being more open on other subjects. This article is a discussion of that, with the references cited going into details on statistical evidence that, at minimum, the sexual activity claim either isn't accurate or requires a broader understanding because it includes millennials as well. The references are the ones making the connection, not me. They are the ones bringing in the statistics when talking about puriteens. And we follow what the reliable sources say on a subject, not our own opinion about it. Silverseren^C 00:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand all that, but you are missing my point still. The question being raised by the term puriteen is "what is a puriteen", to which the answer is "a young person that (some) people believe is excessively uptight about sexual matters". The cited articles discuss this. That's great! Good job!

However, nobody (on the Wiki page for "Puriteen") is asking "are Gen Z having sex" or saying "Gen Z is having less sex". These are two different things! Maybe someone is trying to argue that in a source but it's not reprinted here. It is a non-sequitur to follow "a term describing young people who are mad about my fanfic" with "Gen Z is having less sex but the reasons are complicated".

The statistics section is thus pointless, UNLESS, somewhere in the article is also mentioned WHY these statistics are important. It's not written here! Perhaps one of the sources might have said it, which should make the connection easier to present. Hornpipe2 (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Hornpipe2, the fact that Gen Z is having less sex is not related to the term Puriteen at all which is about attitudes towards sex, not about actually having it, and there is no evidence in that section that the decline in amount of people having sex in younger generations has to do with "puriteens" or attitudes towards sex at all. Correlation is not causation. The statistics section as written even says that Gen Z are more accepting of such things, which conflicts with the idea of "puriteens" in general. TBH the less sex thing is probably to do more with Gen Z not having their own housing, which is a topic completely unrelated to the subject of the article. Rorb lalorb (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

This term doesn't even line up with the wikitionary definition.

Wikipedia: "While not typically anti-LGBTQ, the Generation Z individuals the term is used toward are often against Pride parades and any involvement of kink in that or other LGBTQ activities. Though some of this discussion among those termed puriteens are not, according to author Leo Herrera, an "organic" conversation and are instead pushed by "far-right bad actors" to cause conflict and advance anti-gay positions."

Wikitionary: "A teenager or young adult (especially an LGBT or LGBT-supportive member of Gen Z) whose views on sexuality are seen as sex-negative or moralistic." Baudshaw (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Those seem to match up just fine to me. And the article just says what the reliable sources discussing the term say. Which is how Wikipedia articles are meant to be written. Silverseren^C 15:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The statistics section should be removed, it is irrelevant to the topic of the article. 'Puriteen' is a slang term and not the accepted academic, journalistic, or english-speaking referent for either sex-negative attitudes among Gen-Z LGBTQ+ people or a decline in teenage sex. As such, the topic and focus of the article should remain on the term itself and not wander off trying to explain these topics to the reader. RevolutionXenon (talk) 03:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

The references for that section are explicitly about the puriteen term and discuss statistics in order to determine the validity of the term. Thus, the statistics are relevant. Furthermore, there's plenty of academic coverage of the puriteen term as well, which I'll likely add to the article soon. There's the section here in a fandom analysis textbook. We even have an academic paper that's an analysis of the Vox article I included already. And there's plenty of other sources out there. Silverseren^C 03:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)