So this is kind of like my other thread where it was the brainchild of someone I know and I've been juggling it around in my mind ever since talking to them about it, partially because I'm much newer to the world of art than any of you.

So suppose you have an art market, and on this art market, a lot of people trade, commission, and adopt art that can be used for, well, bodily fulfillment. It being a public space, anyone can see it and determine they want something, right?

When you go to most bars, at least most bars in the country I'm from, bars are allowed to and even encouraged to refuse drinks to alcoholics, in fact people can voice their concerns to a bartender about someone being an alcoholic, and the bartender will typically oblige and maybe serve them something else.

Now in my mind, I can't help but mentally apply this to the art world. Bars are called upon to refuse drinks to alcoholics, but NSFW artists aren't called upon to refuse service to carnalaholics? Why is this a norm in one but not the other? Rookie minds would like to know.

Not only that, but NSFW artists can price their work infinitely, even to those same carnalaholics. Anyone remember that furry OC on DeviantArt that sold for twenty thousand dollars? Pepperidge Farm regretfully remembers. Imagine that, twenty thousand, that's like over nine thousand. That sounds like exploitation.

I'm not one to judge if people should refuse porn or not but I think the question is, why would they? Like you said, there's big bucks to be made, in the end da monies just speak louder than words.

...

Well, for most people anyway x-x Ya couldn't pay me enough to draw porn, I just won't do it

True, but then you have a bunch of people making deals you can't refuse.

Ima level with you chief this is a really odd question to think of from this particular perspective xD I'm not sure if comparing these two things makes sense on this basis?

if your question is about why are bartenders Societally obligated to "cut someone off" but artists are not - I think that actually comes down to the fact that there's a liability (legally) for a bartender / host if someone can be proven to have become dangerously intoxicated through a lack of "cutting off" the consumer in question. like, that is most certainly the driving principle behind why we have a societal expectation of bartenders in this way. sure - maybe there's also a sense of personal integrity there for some people. I wouldn't be surprised. but that comes down to the individual and I'm certain there are also artists who would turn away clients on a personal integrity basis if they thought their product might be harming someone.

so essentially:

bartenders - legally responsible? yes

bartenders - societally responsible? yes, due to legal obligation for avoidance of harm 

bartenders - socially responsible? maybe, depending on individual integrity.

artists - legally responsible? no

artists - societally responsible? no. no legal precedence for them to be held to avoidance of harm.

artists - socially responsible? maybe, depending on individual integrity.

if, overnight, we removed the legal liability for bartenders to "cut someone off" when necessary, I'm certain overnight we would also see plenty of establishments go after the money associated with a less limited customer base. not that everyone would abandon their morals overnight, but that plenty of businesses might care more about that bottom line than prevention of harm, and if there was no consequence other than disapproval, that might not cut it as a deterrent.

I'd also argue that dangerous intoxication carries a more physical risk of harm than porn addiction, which might carry a more psychological risk of harm. not that this means that the latter cant be honestly considered/evaluated, but that it does become much more difficult to place responsibility on a "supplier" and I personally don't think it could be fairly legislated (from this angle, at least. we'd just run into some catastrophic censorship problems imo.)

I'll further add this, even though I myself I'm a strictly sfw drawer, most nsfw artists turned out to be way kinder, more loyal and responsible than a lot of sfw artists I met. Don't judge a book by its art, I guess

Yeah, liquor licenses are a thing, whereas there's no central authority to qualify art (thank God). There's also the important caveat that it's not clear whether porn addiction is actually a clinical condition, much less how you could recognize it in online interactions if you don't know the person IRL.

Actually the Grem2 saga dovetails neatly with the appalling explosion of TV ads for online gambling: you want to talk about feeding a vice, let's start with the games we know are rigged.

This the day after I took someone to task for claiming payment platforms' crackdown on adult content was part of "le LGBT New World Order". :X

I heard from them the LGBT community wanted to show porn to kids? What narrative are they going it now? (like, today, I guess)

It was one of those Gamergate types whingeing that "minorities don't let you act like a chud anymore". One woman replied that 1) there are tons of LGBT+ adult artists (who are doubly vulnerable simply by being queer), and 2) the actual issue is a mix of advertiser pressure (Tumblr), fraudulent chargebacks (Gumroad), and people playing victim after breaking the TOS (Paypal), and he proceeded to mansplain that "you don't understand". 🙃

They were probably thinking about the book L8r G8r which did have explicit pornography in it, and was geared towards kids despite that. However, using one author known for being predatory that happened to be LGBT to represent every single LGBT person is mindnumbingly stupid if you ask me, they're not a monolith. Then again, it's probably well known now that homophobia and transphobia are also thinly veiled racism and misogyny if we've learned anything from the TERF/FART narrative, and the "anti-woke" narrative.

I don't think I would take NSFW commissions, I would prefer to draw it just for myself and my partner if I can help it. Being asked if I take NSFW requests when I was still a minor at the time especially turned me away from wanting to, but then again, that person was permanently banned from DeviantArt, probably for asking other users that were underage at the time for the same request.

Also, I feel like original species are over-hated, and also widely misunderstood. Most of the time, when artists sell closed species, it's because they're lower class and need the money to pay the bills and buy food, and nobody will commission them currently. Also, the hatred tends to overlap towards original species in general, or existing species that are mistaken for closed or open species. I once received comments on other art sites that people don't like "closed or open species", and by extension, they disliked my character Sirhan, who is not even an original species, he is an Okami hybrid, and last I checked, Japanese folklore has been using yokai longer than DeviantArt. But they shouldn't be looking at my gallery if they dislike him anyway, and even when I do make original species, they're not closed or open, they just exist and I don't care if people make their own characters of the species or not. 

I've never heard of the phrase "carnaholics", but I assume you mean refusing to sell NSFW art to people with sex addiction/porn compulsion, etc.? That's not really a parallel issue at all, that's just a matter of personal responsibility for the "consumer" to not indulge in things they have an unhealthy relationship with. You bring up the alcoholics and bars, but a recovering alcoholic would be aware of their problem and stay away from any settings where alcohol is served and would go somewhere like a coffee shop instead to socialize. (I'm speaking from experience, addiction runs in my family and I've struggled with different kinds in my life.) Drawings don't have the same risk as IRL sexual activity or even looking at IRL porn of people you don't know, so unless someone is completely off the deep end, ironically I think art would be a better way to cope/process. 

I think this is closer to liquor stores or most stores selling cigarettes, besides showing an ID for proof the cashier isn't really going to grill you if you have a smoking/drinking addiction, it's not their problem. That's on you if you're spending your money on beer and cigarettes. Commission artists are also allowed to refuse clients for any reason, public spaces like bars though have a legal incentive to "keep the peace" when it comes to drunks and alcoholics in a social setting.

It's more likely it's just the old homophobic narrative of "the entire LGBT community are groomers/child abusers" that's been around for decades, rather than any specific examples. I'm not sure how long it's been around for, but there is an anti-gay propaganda film from the 1950s with this exact messaging in it.

Most of the time, when you see anything about "protecting the kids", it's a shield for homophobia. LGBT books meant for young adults (18-25) are a great example, because they get banned "for showing porn to children" when it was never meant for kids in the first place.

I never heard of this book but I looked it up and Wikipedia says it's a young adult novel and the sexual content involves adults, it just has a young fanbase. (Which makes sense, 13+ kids are prone to reading edgy things that are too mature for them, I did.) Sounds like conservatives are freaking out over "the children" WRT something that isn't meant for them in the first place. I don't think that makes an author a predator unless there's something about her I don't know.

I used the term carnaloholics because I know his presidency BadKarma has been slowly getting the forums in the state of being of having NSFW options for threads (or a NSFW subforum) and I didn't want this thread to be a product of its time by assuming something as simple as saying the three-letter S word wasn't going to be a trigger once the time came that NSFW threads could be separated from SFW threads. On Reddit, even just using the acronym NSFW triggers the thread into being considered an NSFW thread.

But to bring us to my train of thought...

I still have an inkling the two parts of what I was saying isn't a bad discussion because addiction to bodily fulfillment is as real an addiction as to alcohol. I forget the Latin diagnostic term for it, it's something like hyperphilia. It's hyper something. Any time someone dangles something over an addict's head, whether it's alcohol, bodily fulfillment, food, even something like friendship (though many would call that an addiction to honor), it's leverage, especially when it's on display, though some have more humanly susceptibility and are "true addictions" (humans are technically animals, so that's going to be the king of addictions). If you're addicted to certain drugs, all it takes to throw off your balance is a chance encounter with that one guy who wants to sell you death sticks. Impulse, not just the addictive kind, is easy to trigger if you know what impulses someone has. There was a guy once who became a case study for being addicted to heavy metal music.

So why do I (well, not "I", someone else [same person as before] planted the idea and I thought it had enough merit to think of) tie this in with art?

In my mind... artist who sells risque art + someone with the mind of Master Roshi = instaprofit, it might not sound urgent but there are hundreds of ways an interaction could go.

The art world is one full of theft, fair trades (so not always theft), adopts, and commissions which people professionalize, with art being as little as two dollars or as much as hundreds (or, in the case of the guy in the Reddit post in the OP, quintuple digits, which I look at like someone who heard a tree fall in the distance and think "was that guy...... okay?"). There is no cap on pricing and no cap on how to properly go about an interaction, so in a world of all kinds of people, I think to myself, are we setting ourselves up? Even if it's difficult to imagine an example, it's just easy to imagine how it might end ugly. Also, back in the olden days (in some countries), a lot of entertainment related things did have maximum prices, and this idea is being picked up again, and I'm thinking over the possible incentives.

My mistake then. It probably got placed in childrens' sections in libraries by mistake. Then again, I've seen the original Warriors books back when they were still called "Warrior Cats" in the elementary school section despite its violent content.

Yeah, I think the same thing happened with Jamie (Jammidodger's) book, 'The "T" in LGBT', because a transphobe claimed it was "turning kids trans", as if trans kids don't already exist, and cis kids just go through Pokémon-style evolutions into trans adults. Personally, I knew I was non-binary with a possibility of being transmasc since I was 7-8 years old, I just didn't know there were words for any of that yet. The only thing I disagree with in his book is the use of a werewolf zombie as a comparison for transphobes, because wolves have been demonized enough already, and these animals deserve a break. The monster looked more like a tailless cat than a wolf anyway. 

I wasn't expecting the "groomer/pdf file" moral panic to come back, but here we are. It's even more ironic that it even encompasses aro/ace people, when it means you're not attracted to anyone, not even kids, and transitioning for children just means getting a hairdo, changing your clothes, and your name. Ironically when I was groomed, it was from a cis dude, but no one cared. Actually, I was told I deserved it simply because I had a bad reputation back then. I don't want to justify my existence to people who think I shouldn't exist anyway. I just want to draw, make cartoons, write music, and have fun while wishing someone would commission me to draw their cute pets. 

I think I rambled on enough, back to the subject of NSFW commissions.

Fair enough, but I honestly don't know if there are any minors or at least under 16 where this discussion would be inappropriate to have.

Hypersexuality, you mean? (Also I agree, the "porn addiction isn't real" claim is something I don't really like, because even if it isn't a substance addiction, it's still a behavioral compulsion. Anything can be an addiction.)