I use pictures similar to >pic related in combination with lo-fi nature pics as wallpapers for notebook and phone. I only use pictures which I find have some artistic merit.
>Some people get really worked up about it or give give weird looks.
>Perverted
On the other hand a friend uses >Pic in first post as wallpapers (Playboy tier WPs)
> nobody bats an eye. Or find it completely 'normal' and even 'cool' - even girls. Even conversation starter
>Why these different standards for different people?
>>16930851
Friend's wallpapers. example:
>>16930851
most blatantly sexy I use:
>I try to keep them anonymous
>no famous models
>no faces / 'eye contact'
>makes it more artistic
>less 'hurtful' to females, no direct comparisons (apparently not?)
i was always offput by sexy wallpapers when I see them on my friends computers. It's like, do you really have to use sexy women as decoration? Are we teenagers?
>>16930867
None of these stipulations change anything for me.
>>16930886
ok I kind of get that.
But are women really incapable to see artistic merit in the female form?
I am single and am not bound and therefore wouldn't hurt any SO. I have an interest in photography (especially of people, also men)
>But then why do some people get flack for it and some don't?
>>16930851
your friend is probably a Chad
>>16930937
This, or he's just smart enough to judge who he should/should not show his wallpaper to, unlike OP, or OP isn't actually aware of how people respond to both wallpapers.
Those are the three likeliest explanations of your scenario.
>>16930867
>less hurtful to females
Sorry mate you're a fucking beta and women are walking right over you because they can detect it. Your friend, on the other hand, actually gets respect from women.
Femanon here, I don't really have an answer but I can at least give some input.
>>16930867
I think this is good. Having faces (unless it's anime or something) in the kind of weirds me out, and I think having a celebrity would be off-putting because if you know who they are, it's not just "that's a pretty girl," it's "why does this guy like [name] so much." The girls who are "hurt" by it are probably just feminists who get triggered by photos of women and think it's "objectifying" them or insulting fat girls or whatever.
>>16930886
I see nothing wrong with using photos of women as decoration, that's the entire purpose of model photos. But I do prefer when there's a degree of separation, like if the face isn't very clear, and I think more tasteful photos are more, well, tasteful, than soft porn. I'm not sure why, showing the face just kinds of weirds me out (makes it too personal, I guess), and I don't understand why you would want something that could be arousing as your wallpaper.
>>16930908
I'm an artist and nude female figures are one of my favorite things to draw. You can definitely see beauty in bodies even if you aren't sexually interested in them.
I think >>16930937 and >>16930954 are the best explanations. I assume the friend is also pretty confident if he's using such photos, so maybe people are just less willing to question him.
>>16930937
no Chad.
>Bad dresser
>Not in frat
>No frosted tips
But he is indeed very talkative and brash. Forward to girls.
>>16930954
>Friend talkative and upfront with girls - not a chad
>Well he uses them in public. The same way I do. Don't use them in meetings,etc.
>Probably. I do see a difference between my WPs and Maxim-tier girls as WPs. Also I don't get what there is to be offended about. My WPs are not /hc/ porn or brash playboy fap material.
>>16930960
>walk over me
Well then they wouldn't bother to be offended now would they?
>>16930987
Best input so far. Thanks.
I have a similar attitude, as I find having eye contact with a WP/LockScreen creepy. It cannot always be avoided but they are never recognisable faces from media.
Well he uses them in identical scenarios I use them in.
>Regular notebook/phone lockscreen
>Public places (ie lectures, library, etc.)
>Confident using wallpaper? - care to elaborate?
>>16930851
I asked my friend today about why he doesn't get flak.
He says:
> Well it can be used as conversation starter.
> When asked why I have them as wp, I just say I like the acting etc. (ie Emma Watson, etc)
> gets 'seems legit' as a reaction
Me says (when asked why these wps?):
> Some pictures tells a miniature story to me. (Journey, Travel, Longing, etc.)
> I like the >chillwave >dreampop >folk rock and these pics represent the accompanying >aesthetic
> friends says: well don't know just your vibe probably? Cannot explain it man.
> get a weird looks.
I have no idea what this is but I will say these photos are very beautiful.
>>16930960
Exactly this. The difference is youre a loser and your friend is not
>>16930851
They probably think you're a weirdo because you insist on deluding yourself into thinking you only do it for "muh artistic merit" wheres your friend just likes tits. It's the difference between a pretentious "connoisseur" and a guy who likes tits.
>>16930908
you are putting them on your phone for sexual reasons. art may come into it.
yes the female form can be artsy, it has merit. but you dont post naked pictures of men, or children, or whatever else on your phone, its specially hot chicks.
i say do whatever the fuck you want, btu you cant have nudity on your phone and not have people think any different of you for it.
>BUT MY FRIEND GETS AWAY WITH IT
from what you see. thats it. what you see. he is not you, so its not the point.
i say keep em. especially like the first one. do whatever you want and fuck anyone else. i just dont see why people feel the need to incorporate a sexual asepct into their hourly lives.
>>16931682
>>16931522
I agree with these. Liking girls in an artistic way is kinda creepy and beta ish. You can maybe get away with it in an art environment but not in daily lives. Your friend is the typical guy that fits the stereotype. You are someone who appears to like girls in a weird way that most average people can't understand. They are used to guys liking playboy girls but what you show yourself makes people think you see girls as something like objects or that you put too much value on looks, ironically.
A playboy picture for example is more casual and playful and has more personality. It's also laid back. Artistic photos like these make the girls look faceless and soul less. People don't know how to approach them.
The old school photo filter doesn't help either.
Even if your arguments are valid your wallpapers affect how people see you.
>>16931711
I must add though, it's only weird and beta from an average normal person's point of you. Not saying you are beta or weird, I understand you and I think you have cool taste and all. If you don't mind the trouble you are getting, keep the pictures. But remember that depending on your environment you may encounter mostly simple people with simple thinking.
>>16931734
anime is different
>>16931522
you guys seem to come up with this argument a lot. It is not very insightful to be bluntly honest.
Can somebody explain what is beta about liking art outside of a gallery-setting?
>>16931682
>>16931711
>>16931694
>I am male
>I am straight
Therefore I would never deny that I am not in it for the girls.
But in this case I would deny that I am 'in it for the tits'. There are hardly any tits visible so this to me seems somewhat unfounded.
>see girls as objects
A phrase I have heard multiple times when asking about this.
These girls are not in pain are not 'objectified or fetishised' in any manner i can see.
People take pictures of girls in an 'artsy' environment and put filters on it, reminiscent of electronic/folk music.
>Don't see the objectification.
>Would half naked pics in a magazine next to cars be much more objectifying?
How is Maxim/FHM more 'relaxed' than music inspired WPs?
>make up
>posing
>lingerie
Value on looks?
>faces are not shown, therefore no direct 'emotional' connection
>not liking fat wrinkly chicks is hardly offensive, or is it?
Soulless
>To me these pictures tell genuine stories, just a matter of perspective i'd suppose.
>I source the taste of pictures from tumblr/Majestic Casual - does that mean that people who listen to Majestic Casual in public are all beta fags?
>Are all art/'not even nude' photographers beta fags?
>>16931807
The whole point is that average normal people don't get it. You have all these reasons but the average person has a simple mind and isn't used to this.
And not being in it for the tits is in no way above liking a girl with thigh high socks.
You still see girls as objects in this pictures because they don't have personality. It's just a picture where the girl is interchangeable with any other good looking girl. And because you wouldn't put an average fat girl in those artistic pictures.
The reason having a playboy model in lingerie is "okay" is because people are used to that and because it's more popular and lighthearted, it's more in touch with the average wanna be alpha guy that's honest with himself, even if he still objectifies women.
In short, you are still objectifying women.
Also to some people, having a picture like that makes it appear like the guy wants to "own" the girl. It's the reason why having a picture of your girlfriend would be okay otherwise, having a picture of a celeb would be half okay, but having a picture of a stranger nobody that only looks pretty is weird.
>>16931715
Isn't this the case for everything you do publicly?
Independent of style of wallpaper?
Pic related?
>dreamy faggot
>likes nature
>animals
This also affects people's perception.
>>16931721
>suppose same anon
Perhaps I underestimate people's capacity to understand others.
Listen to these WPs with some Beach House on playing in the background. Different strokes for different folks.
But what bothers me is the argumentation of people, saying that it is
>pervers
>beta
>objectifying
To me these don't seem logical or well founded, especially when compared to other people who have WPs like my friend up there >>16930856
>>16931734
>>16931738
To be honest, I must agree. Anime is drawn. And as long as it isn't something'artsy' (Miyazaki-tier, Makoto Shinkai-tier...) it will come off as very bland escapism.
>>16931827
So from my understanding you are arguing that the 'non-conventional' depiction of women confuses people.
>ok
...but then again. There are also 'artistic' marketing compaigns (>pic related: American Apparel). Few people bat an eye when that is on billboards. So that does no longer fall into the category of objectification?
> but are confused when even tamer pics are used as personal WPs? = objectification? >again logic?
>own a girl
>this one is new to me.
Why would it appear that I want to own a girls who I can hardly recognise most of the time? Blurry, No face, facing away completely?
>>16931866
>facing away completely
because it's like guys that stare at girls they don't know without talking to them, people find that weird/creepy and assume the guy is fantasysing in his mind. And because like it's been said before it appears like there's an emotional disconection with the scene and the girl. You say it's linked to music and stuff but a lot of people can't understand that. The one picture that would work is that Scarlet Johanson one that was posted here since it's from the movie.
Also because these pictures are sexual in a non obvious way.
>>16931734
Yeah, but you're a namefag fuckwit that people wish would die. In a fire.
Op doesn't want to be like you.
>>16931892
so you say it mimiks the perspective of a 'creep'. I would say that the environments give it a more special edge. (creeping on a beautiful cliff seems off to me)
>>16932133
If it was just the beautiful cliff it wouldn't be creepy.
>>16931034
Sounds to me like the typical bro behavior is more acceptable than someone that actually reads into the artistic value.
Find some artsy girls. They stand a better chance of appreciating your tastes.
>>16932133
>that fucking wallpaper
>fits my resolution perfectly
Welp
>>16932138
1/3 of the rotation are nature wallpapers (without girl) examples above
>>16932210
those girls are somewhat hard to find.
>>16932225
Well I prefer Shinkai. Also artsy often come with daddy issues.
bump
It still objectifies women. Your friend gets away with it because people know that type of guy pretty well so they accept it and know how to react to it. Yours is basically saying "I like girls because art" but it's still the same thing, it's even weirder because you are sexualizing them in a not so clearly sexual way.
>>16932255
>>16932924
I prefer my landscapes to have no humans in them.
>>16932951
>people are get worked up because it represents women in a non-trivial way. A way people are not accustomed to
Most women in these photos are not even sexual. That means that every kind of representation of women is a form objectification?
>girl walking through snow
>looking out a train window
>girl looking at beautiful scenery
I also have pictures involving animals, would that make PETA activists angry as well, as I am 'objectifying animals'?
>I am genuinely trying to understand the points made, but to me they do not seem logically cohesive.
>>16933327
I set the rotation up in such a way, that at least 1/3 of the pictures in rotation do not involve humans.
>Creates an equilibrium the presence of man and 'untouched' beauty of nature.
>Motif of freedom
>Calm
>>16930867
>>no faces / 'eye contact'
Objectification
>>16930851
apparently bottomless
>>16930856
wearing obvious bottoms
>>16935275
As I said above, I thought that having no eye contact with the girl would avoid uncomfortable comparisons and make it less offensive by making it less 'personal', emphasising the 'art' aspect of the photo.
Now I am beginning to notice that people are offended by virtually everything these days.
> So would you also say that >this picture is a sexual objectification of women and a non-worthy depiction of women in the 21th century? ie offensive?
>>16935820
>wow anon, I have never noticed this all this time.
But in the end she still wears a lot more cloth than the woman on my friend's picture.
>>16932133
>>16932252
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n13H1mOvnW8
>>16936156
>listening to music
>liking the accompanying aesthetic
>themes his computer around this aesthetic
>people accuse him of objectification and perversion
wut?
