6 mo. ago • 83%

oars (OpenAgeRatingsService) in appdata.xml files: why "sex-homosexuality"?

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).

68 comments

Because by law in certain countries, homosexuality is persona non grata, and a filter needs to be there to legally operate in such countries.

61
- Thank you for actually providing an answer to the question, without insulting anyone.
  
  12
- Do these backward shepherds that stone their wives need computers?
  
  -5
  
  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.
  
  28
  
  I too think that it would be better for everyone if the USA was cut off from technology.
  
  21
  
  Not everyone that disagrees with a law is in a position to immediately change it.
  
  11
  
  I dunno, why don't you ask, eg: Russia?
  
  6
They should have one for heterosexuality, too, if it's all about tastes.

46
- No kidding. So sick of hearing about those people 😙
  
  5
Because some people want to filter it out. So it gets a label.

43
- Or filter it in
  
  23
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.

32
Because some bigots want to filter it out.

27
- Excuse me for wanting to filter out heavily homosexual content. If you like it go ahead, I just don't want to see it.
  
  -19
  
  By "heavily homosexual", do you mean pornographic? Because that's a separate tag.
  
  Edit: typo.
  
  12
  
  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.
  
  12
  
  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.
  
  -15
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.
24
- commit message
  
  I'm --><-- close to just deleting OARS completely
  
  Don't threaten us with a good time Hughsie
  
  4
  
  I remember filling OARS out for one of my apps. Maybe I'm naive and it's a step needed for mass adoption, but it feels like a solution looking for a problem.
  
  1
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.

18
- 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
  
  1
  
  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.
  
  1
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!

16
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 ?

15
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.

8
- 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
  
  1
Cos there are people who are not interested in homosexual stuff cos they are not homosexual?

-17
- Tha makes no sense unliss there was also a hetero tag for homosexuals to use.
  
  14
  
  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.
  
  -19
- 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.
  
  12
  
  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.
  
  -30
- 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.
  
  11
@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.

-33
- 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.
  
  24
- should still already choose their sexuality
  
  Sexuality is not a choice, any more than your skin colour is a choice.
  
  11
- 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.
  
  5
- Make sure you apply your own views to heterosexual content then.
  
  No content that shows; kissing, hand holding, weddings, happy couples, families.
  
  Notice how none of this content is 'controversial' unless it has the word gay in front of it. None of this stuff is sexual, but you still think it's damaging kids to see happy, functioning gay families.
  
  You don't give a shit about protecting kids, you just want to force your backwards views onto others
  
  1

You've viewed 68 comments.