I can understand why all the other things would be listed here, and I would understand if sexuality in general was considered inappropriate for children, but why homosexuality in particular? This is strange to me.
<content_rating type="oars-1.1">
<content_attribute id="violence-cartoon">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="violence-fantasy">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="violence-realistic">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="violence-bloodshed">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="violence-sexual">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="violence-desecration">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="violence-slavery">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="violence-worship">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="drugs-alcohol">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="drugs-narcotics">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="drugs-tobacco">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="sex-nudity">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="sex-themes">none</content_attribute>
<!-- this line here -->
<content_attribute id="sex-homosexuality">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="sex-prostitution">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="sex-adultery">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="sex-appearance">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="language-profanity">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="language-humor">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="language-discrimination">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="social-chat">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="social-info">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="social-audio">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="social-location">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="social-contacts">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="money-purchasing">none</content_attribute>
<content_attribute id="money-gambling">none</content_attribute>
</content_rating>
EDIT: as one commenter pointed out, an explanation can be found in a commit on the git repo and the tag has been removed.
Rationale
---
Certain attributes in the specification require some explanation as to why they
are present. This list is not exhaustive and may be added to in future.
* `sex-homosexuality`: As of 2020,
[various countries](https://www.humandignitytrust.org/lgbt-the-law/map-of-criminalisation/)
have laws which criminalise lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT)
people. In order for software and content to be distributed in those
countries without breaking the law, and possible reprisal, it is necessary to
be able to tag software and content which contains LGBT references, so that
it can be hidden in those countries.
However, in other countries (for example, the EU), discrimination laws
explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender or sexuality. So
while LGBT tagging may be available in OARS data, consumers of that data must
only apply it in countries where the law requires that.
It is still strange to me that anyone would add this tag to an age ratings service, if it is a legal issue and not related to age appropriacy. Anyway, thanks for all the answers (except for those who failed to stay civil and/or brought up american politics for no reason).
Note that in oars git repo itself a lot of tags were removed because of idiots calling it “problematic” https://github.com/hughsie/oars/commit/bbb10186cbecb49252610e5604ed025df8f4c8b7
the actual gitrepo explained why it’s neccessary, not wanted
* `sex-homosexuality`: As of 2020, [various countries](https://www.humandignitytrust.org/lgbt-the-law/map-of-criminalisation/) have laws which criminalise lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) people. In order for software and content to be distributed in those countries without breaking the law, and possible reprisal, it is necessary to be able to tag software and content which contains LGBT references, so that it can be hidden in those countries. However, in other countries (for example, the EU), discrimination laws explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender or sexuality. So while LGBT tagging may be available in OARS data, consumers of that data must only apply it in countries where the law requires that.commit message
I’m
--><--close to just deleting OARS completelyDon’t threaten us with a good time Hughsie
To be honest I’m more concerned by
language-humor. Like not even saying what kind of humour, just any type of humour at all. Jokes are for adults only!All of these represent various social mores. I’d have no problem with my kids seeing content involving fantasy violence, but I respect that others might object. As a bisexual myself, I have less respect for those who object to their kids seeing homosexuality specifically, but I can tolerate their existence.
For fairness’ sake, I wouldn’t mind it if heterosexuality were on the list too.
I think things got lost in translation here. We’re not talking about explicit/pornographic content here. There are other tags that cover that. This, however, indicates sexual orientation in general which covers any display of affection that characterizes same gender couples, including kissing, holding hands or be explicitly in a relationship, which is no less appropriate for kids than straight smooching.
Hope that helps
Yes that was clear to me. I was saying that, while I don’t find same-sex content objectionable (indeed it makes me happy to see this kind of representation on screen), and I personally think it’s something children should be exposed to, many people would disagree. Just like other tags on here which I think children shouldn’t be exposed to at a young age but others wouldn’t mind. Relative morality.
Politically speaking, I would be happier if those who oppose same-sex relationships were to change their minds. They pose a threat to my life. But FOSS is for everyone, even people I disagree with.
Oh yeah, absolutely. It, unfortunately, a reality.
To mine as well, I’m with you on that one.
They should have one for heterosexuality, too, if it’s all about tastes.
No kidding. So sick of hearing about those people 😙
Because some bigots want to filter it out.
Excuse me for wanting to filter out heavily homosexual content. If you like it go ahead, I just don’t want to see it.
exactly, it’s not bigoted to want to filter it out (or heterosexual content). I swear these kinds of people are the type who want to make it legal to force someone to watch them have sex in front of you.
By “heavily homosexual”, do you pornographic? Because that’s a separate tag.
100% she means “anything that’s even remotely close to …THAT shudder”
I don’t want to see heterosexuals but you don’t see me legislating against you, subtly erasing you, and actively hunting you. So no. You’re not excused, sweet cheeks.
Because some people want to filter it out. So it gets a label.
Or filter it in
As another user mentioned, I’d suspect because gay is still a death scentence and/or a criminal charge in some places, those would insist anything gay must me filtered ?
From their website;
OARS relies on honest answers from upstream projects and is purely informational.
Gotta admit, despite being bi, i still avoid most m/m stories on the amateur writing sites i follow. Shit gets weird fast.
I pretty much always just avoid m/m media (except for the… obvious genres) regardless of where it’s pretty much all trash, there are some good ones, but there is so much garbage it completely drowns out everything else
Cos there are people who are not interested in homosexual stuff cos they are not homosexual?
This is outright false. If there aren’t graphical or explicit illustrations that are deemed pornographic, then homosexuality and heterosexuality should enjoy the same status as encyclopedic knowledge. This is some “Don’t say gay” stuff.
Nah, let’s be honest, this is so that parents can make sure precious little Bobby doesn’t catch The Gay. LGBT themed cinema is going to let you know, this is for making sure there isn’t a trace of homosexuality to darken Bobby’s pure little heart.
I think it’s more about homosexuality being an anti-natural behavior, animal and human(as we are animals) females and males are meant to reproduce, so from the pointview of biology homosexuality goes against the reproductive needs of the specie to keep being alive. I believe it’s not about homosexuality being evil/bad or wrong.
At the same time the factor time-money it’s pretty relevant.so it’s more important developing for a general userbase than a minority userbase.
You can find ~5% homosexuality in nearly all animals, it also increases with overpopulation. It can not get more natural.
That argument is obviously wrong.
Homosexuality (and other sexualities) exist in nature. This is not uncommon knowledge.Also, the whole “they don’t make babies so they’re unnatural” thing. How long have you thought this argument through?
Humans and animals are born sterile, they grow too old and become infertile. All of that happens in nature.That fantasy world of yours is verifiably not how nature works, and it wouldn’t take you more than 5 minutes to disprove the bullsh*t.
It makes it hard to believe you are arguing in good faith.
Tha makes no sense unliss there was also a hetero tag for homosexuals to use.
Maybe it should be but as homosexuals are a minority in human nature I believe there is no point for developers to do it as they are more interested into making their software work for the majority of people.
Um, equality? Accessibility? Not siding with autocrats violating human rights?
Because by law in certain countries, homosexuality is persona non grata, and a filter needs to be there to legally operate in such countries.
Thank you for actually providing an answer to the question, without insulting anyone.
Do these backward shepherds that stone their wives need computers?
Not everyone that disagrees with a law is in a position to immediately change it.
I too think that it would be better for everyone if the USA was cut off from technology.
The Republican culture war being waged against the LGBT+ community should make it completely clear that your skin color or brand of religious nonsense doesn’t make you immune to bigotry.
if the democrats would stop drumming up as much hatred as possible towards us it wouldn’t have become such a large issue in the first place, People feel like it is getting worse, because it is. People who never even cared about whether someone was gay or not now has a strong negative association towards us because democrats have the incessant need to shove it everywhere they go.
It’s no surprise that people are starting to hate gay folk when they get shit for so much as looking away when they see gay people kiss in public. The amount of time’s I’ve had to say “I’m not one of those gay people” is absurd.
Lmao, I can assure you that to people who hate gay people, you will ALWAYS be one of those people no matter how pathetically you grovel at their feet, the democrats have nothing to do with that.
no, they didn’t. this is behavior I’ve observed in person for multiple people.
Wow, thYs some victim blaming right there.
Not really. some people like things and some people don’t, getting in trouble for so much as not liking something and trying to distance yourself from it is absolutely insane. I don’t like watching straight couple make out in public. im not a bigot for looking away, but when it’s someone straight who looks away from a gay couple doing it all the sudden they are the some of the worst people.
utterly absurd.
This situation doesn’t exist outside your imagination.
I have had the unfortunate privilege of witnessing it happen to a friend.
People who never even cared about whether someone was gay or not now has a strong negative association
Or they can be a big boy and suck it the fuck up
funny how this only ever works one way regardless of who you talk to.
The far-right is not the Democrats fault and I don’t know why you’re bragging about selling out your community.
it’s not the “far right” that’s the issue, it’s the fact that the far left is generating high amounts of animosity from anyone relatively centrist.
“Thanks for pushing normal people to the far-right” is an overt strategy passed around 4chan and far-right chat channels, intended to both discourage the left from defending their views and create the idea that being bigoted is something “normal people” support.
I disagree that it it’s bigoted to for instance, not like games which have rewritten characters to fit a certain demographic, whether it be sexuality or race.
“Defending your rights” and being as loud as possible for the sake of it are 2 completely different things.
The two closest homosexuals in my life are my favorite uncle and my best friend, that happens to be my attorney. My uncle is openly gay, my attorney is married to another woman. This has absolutely NO impact in our interactions. Why? Simple, that’s their business, and everyone in their environment understands this.
Guess why I don’t have more gay people in my environment. Because I don’t like people, precisely because of this incessant need to be loud about irrelevant shit like sexuality. You lack so much of everything else that the only way you have to be seen is your sexual preference? That’s the saddest shit ever. That level of emptiness has to be grueling.
If you have to be constantly “defending” your sexuality, you need to examine the environment you have chosen to participate in.
The problem here is not sexual preference, the problem is that sexual preference, for reasons I can’t begin to understand, has become the defining factor for people, instead of principles, moral, honesty and just flat out being nice.
When was the last time you saw a “heterosexual” parade, specially with a bunch of people swinging it all out?
Whatever happened to “you do you, I do me”?
If you’re still bigoted towards gay people I don’t want you on our side tbh and if you’re now on the right I don’t think you were centrist in the first place. General “you,” of course.
I think people are really underestimating how bad some people are starting to feel about it. It’s constantly being talked about it the news in fairly negative circumstances. Constantly being shoved in peoples faces, “Pride Parades” where people are walking around almost, (and in many cases fully) nude in the middle of the day. Media constantly being changed (and often for the worse) to accommodate the inclusiveness etc.
a lot of people are fine with this, but even I as a man who likes men, think it’s absolutely disgusting to be walking down a public street with your dick and balls, or a woman’s crotch fully exposed. but being against this makes me a “heterosexual bigot” somehow.
People are doing so much to generate as much animosity as possible against, and I’m really starting to hate this term myself, LGBT folk. Folk who just want to mind their own business, aren’t allowed to anymore. and all of negative bullcrap, people ruining old media, walking down the streets naked, screaming at people for trying to mind their own buisness etc. all winds up getting tied to LGBT stuff.
This is what I mean when I have to tell people that I’m not one of “those gays” because I don’t think it’s right to do any of this garbage. And this garbage does make people hate the “LGBT” community.
I dunno, why don’t you ask, eg: Russia?
Oh how sweet is the irony of the bigots in this thread, who thinks the tag is there to “free” from them from seeing gay people holding hands and kissing, when it’s actually there because bigots have outlawed being gay some places.
@ihatelinux
The promotion of homosexuality to small children may be seen as inappropriate, since you would not promote anything else sexual to a 6-year-old (it is grooming). But for some reason, some extreme-minded people think a kid who does not have any idea of sexuality and does not know how to read yet, should still already choose their sexuality and therefore homosexuality needs some coverage in primary schools and kindergartens. If that’s what the line refers to, I think, it’s pretty normal.if you think that a videogame with a gay character is “promotion of homosexuality” and “grooming”, but you don’t think the same about a videogame with a hetero character, then I would ask you why, and why you think that isn’t textbook homophobia.
I really wish we’d have chosen a term that does not include “sex” because it leads to a distorted view such as yours that it must be sexual. It’s in the name after all, right?
But heterosexuality has been promoted to kids for ages now! Children’s shows include married couples for example (husband + wife) or the main character goes into a relationship with a character of the opposite gender. So why does the same thing suddenly become “grooming” and “inappropriate” when it’s husband + husband or wife + wife?Also, covering homosexuality in school does not equate to having “kids choose their sexuality”. Not to mention that it’s not a choice anyway.
should still already choose their sexuality
Sexuality is not a choice, any more than your skin colour is a choice.
