I collect wallpapers and use them as lockscreen slideshow on my PC. Many of them contain women.
They usually follow a certain set of rules:
>avoid direct eye contact
>only subtle and/or non-intrusive nudes
>artistic setting (ex. nature, high-rise, etc.)
But it seems that the pictures get me labelled as a
>pervert
>disgusting
While fellow students can use FHM/Playboy tier wallpapers and can be called
>just innocent fun?
>cool
>Why is this?
I always have to explain to people that i associate these pictures with a certain genre of music that they carry aesthetic value for me. Which they often don't seem to understand anyway.
>>17265632
Fellow students - example.
Who is calling you a pervert?
>>17265632
my collection - example 2
>>17265640
other people.
>Bad looks
>Comments as 'that guy with the pervy wps
>While friends and fellow students use Playboy
>>17265632
How about you stop having such shit taste? Wallpapers with humans are low brow.
>>17265632
Because be a man and owning media that is in any way sexualized clashes with social norms.
When something clashes with social norms, people will attempt to belittle/brand out for it because in the eyes of their peers they will be confirmed as abiding by social norms.
e.g.
>Chad sees your wallpaper
>Chad says you're a pervert
>Stacey hears Chad says this
>Stacey now knows Chad abides by social norms
>Stacey is now more comfortable/has higher opinion of Chad
Beyond that, people will also assume you masturbate to those pictures, which is unsettling.
>>17265632
Because your aesthetic interest is sexual and submissive.
I will not debate your interest in it, but i will say that by social standard you should keep it private.
>>17265650
I find these wallpapers complimentary to my music and they help me unwind during breaks.
>>17265657
I would not dub this >>17265644 submissive.
>>17265656
It is not really the chads who judge it is other people comparing them to chad pictures and finding chad pictures to be 'more socially acceptable' than non-nude/semi-nude artsy wallpapers.
>I also use men
>>17265658
I like this one. Too bad resolution is too low.
>>17265664
Still usable as wallpaper. Go to IMT and ask them to fix it up.
>Seemingly I am not the only one who likes such photos.
>>17265672
Wow this is great
>>17265681
listen to it with this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFTvbcNhEgc
the pictures come to life.
>>17265693
this works perfectly too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwSOui01rR8
Can't believe it hasn't been mentioned yet, but the main reason that it's stigmatized is because it's something young boys (fourteen or something) do. There's an age where you're seen as cool for having a naked chick on display as your wallpaper, then people stop doing it both because they want a more neutral look and because they collectively associate the (semi-)nudes with being a horny fourteen year old.
Some other student can probably get away with it because if he's cocky and cool, he can convincingly do it ironically. Just like he could probably pull off some nerdy shirt, and you'd be socially stoned for it.
Just get another damn wallpaper. Or get one with a girl but not one with nudity, this seems fine >>17265644. I don't get what the issue is, you can still collect them, just don't display them to the world.
>>17265706
this is rad anon. Going to dig for more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHmNEQYc3js
try this.
>>17265708
i understand your point.
But i highly doubt that the makers of these wallpapers cater to 14 years olds listening to folk music.
I understand that Playboy pictures are used by 14yo to seem edgy.
But consider my pictures more mature and artistically valuable than FHM nudes.
>>17265632
Pro-tip, bro: it's not your wallpapers that make girls think you're a weirdo.
It's You.
>>17265708
and no they are not ironic hipster...
>>17265632
>>17265637
Your taste is more erotic than sexy, which is what makes people uncomfortable. It's like a fetish.
>>17265742
>we are at university and probably above using the term 'weirdo'
hugely insightful.
>>17265756
could you elaborate on the difference, the line people draw?
what makes you think that?
>>17265632
I don't know. Maybe it's the amateur look that most the pictures you posted have?
>>17265658
>>17265672
>>17265693
These all have a intimate feel to them because of how they feel like someone's just private photos. Maybe you're being called perverted because it looks like you're putting people's Facebook photos as your wallpaper? Maybe you're appearing to be a creeper.
I feel like it could be at least one of the reasons. I don't disagree with your style, but you could probably find something that doesn't look like their SO took of them while they weren't looking.
Why is this a problem?
If the criticism bothers you, switch your wallpaper. Look at your soft-core porn at home.
>>17265773 is me
>>17265772
this one is good.
>>17265729
The bottom line is that you want your wallpaper to look presentable in different circumstances. Imagine if you saw the laptop of a girl in front of you and it was a naked man holding something in front of his crotch. Wouldn't you think that was... if not trashy, at the very least in bad taste?
Now if it's a romantic softfocus of a nude guy from the back, it's not so much trashy as just kind of weird. It's like getting a glimpse into the head of this random girl where she daydreams about hot yet vulnerable dudes spilling their first sexual fantasies to her. You're just trying to have a lecture, you don't want to be thinking about what her associations with that wallpaper are.
The point is that people are not going to immediately realize exactly where your wallpapers sit in terms of (semi-)nude wallpapers. Nude skin grabs attention. Someone is going to briefly see your screen and go "what the fuck, he just has some picture of a naked girl out for everyone to see". I don't know what else to add. I don't think it's immature to think they are beautiful or anything, but I think you should pick your battles and realize you are causing a fuss you could avoid with minimal effort while still picking something within your style.
Same, OP. Same.
>>17265778
Also do want to add that I agree with other people, the pictures also have an aspect of what I'd say voyeurism. It's like they're alone and the photographer catches them in a private, unguarded moment. That has an intimacy and sexual appeal that is more "real", less stylized and dolled up than the typical pictures of a celebrity giving the camera a big smile. On top of that, if someone has a picture of Jennifer Lawrence in a bikini or whatever, he could obviously just be a fan of hers or just think she is a particularly attractive woman. Because the women you posted are not that recognizable, it is obvious that their appeal lies in just being naked women, not them being x or y person. That also makes it more sexual.
>>17265772
It's erotic because the sexuality is implied and subtle. People look at it and get horny and don't know why they're horny and this frustrates them so they just externalize it as a perv picture. Whereas in the FHM picture they know why they're horny. There's a reason why you use these pictures as a wallpaper, maybe you enjoy the feeling of subtle sexuality, which isn't unhealthy, but most people in the US at least stifle sexuality to a point where only overt acts of sex brings everyone on the same page.
>>17265773
Intimate pictures for intimate folk/dream pop music.
In order to avoid this facebook allegation, i usually avoid direct identifiable pictures.
And many are in fact not amateur.
>pic related.
>>17265774
>>17265778
i personally have stopped seeing this as a problem. Although I have never really understood why people judge and even asking friends has never yielded results.
It is more the fact that others can get away with blatant cocktease FHM wallpapers while i am the one being judged.
>There is a dynamic there i don't seem to understand.
>>17265784
I would find this much more provocative desu
>>17265804
See my second post. Their cocktease pictures refer to cultural sex, the kind of sex you see in videoclips and Hollywood films, the stylized idea of sex.
Your pictures remind people of the sex they have with their actual girlfriends and exes and that makes them uncomfortable. They are intimate pictures of women in poses in which only a loved one would see them, not presented to the world in a flashy manner like in those cocktease pics.
>>17265632
Didn't you make this thread once before OP? I'm sure we had one exactly the same as this a few weeks ago.
>>17265790
>voyeurism
I highly doubt that men who use a semi nude of Jennifer Lawrence 'appreciate her as an actress and use this wallpaper as a form of homage to her prowess as an actress'.
Naturalistic pictures for naturalistic folk/shoegaze/dream pop/synthpop. This is what makes them fit. They tell stories, not only of the people but also the setting in which they were taken.
>When I try to explain this people rarely seem to understand.
>>17265791
>implied and subtle
our daily environments are chalk full off obvious sexualisation. It is refreshing to see more subtle forms pictures which actually artistically emphasise the human form, rather than shove it in our faces.
>>17265823
Don't remember seeing such a thread.
Definitely wasn't me anon.
>>17265814
interesting point.
My pictures are stylised (in a different way that is). Although they might evoke realism, they are clearly constructed.
>3rd person taken the photo
>rooms are too 'staged' to be fully natural
>lighting
>editing
it is more subtle. But should be understandable when thought about for even a few seconds.
I cannot imagine anybody getting an 'erection' from these pictures.
>>17265824
>'appreciate her as an actress and use this wallpaper as a form of homage to her prowess as an actress'.
Of course not, but there's a difference between "this is a person I like/have a celebrity crush on and this is a sexy revealing picture of her" and "this is a picture of a sexy faceless lady just being sexy".
I am not saying that there is no motivation behind your choice, I'm just trying to show what other people see.
>>17265804
That might not be an amateur picture but it certainly looks like one. The headroom is too large. She's pretty centered without a wide birth like >>17265772 . And it still drums up on the intimate thing instead of a beauty in her natural habitat. She even looks like she was asked to stand aside, which separates her from the rest and implies some sorta connection with the photographer, even if a brief interview. If she was on the curb, looking up to the sky or something, it wouldn't look so jarringly like a SO stopped her and took a snap.
>>17265784
Was also my post, but I forgot to post with it. My screens are pretty good with colors and contrast, so I tend to have a bunch of pictures of women, usually in some stylized way like that one. No one seems bothered by it, not even my girlfriend.
>>17265836
Of course, I didn't mean that they look like candids, I meant that they resemble candids in their set up. And whereas for example a picture of a popular celebrity posing fancily in barely any clothing can look like it's staged to resemble a movie set or a movie still, the pictures you show clearly aim to resemble real life intimacy, real life closeness. It is obviously staged, but >>17265729 is about ten times closer to anything anyone will see when they wake up next to their loved one than a bikini picture. That has to do with several things but part of it is the focus on her body and her nudity without focussing on the boobs/ass like most somewhat nude pics do. It also seems more intimate because she is not looking in the camera, she is not taking a pose or trying to come across a certain way, she just is. She might as well be sleeping.
That makes it a more vulnerable shot that touches more upon real sexuality.
I'm not saying most people would find it more arousing per se. More that they would be more shaken by it because it portrays a very personal part of real life in a way that no playbunny does. And because our brain is constantly numbed to provocative, glamorous shots of (near) naked women - in ads, in movies, in random pictures online, in porn - while these pictures offer a no doubt for many fresh look into female appeal and sensuality. That in itself makes it more striking and more effective.
>>17265840
this pictures is part of an entire photo-shoot by a fashion photographer (who also does such pictures.)
This particular pictures i like because of its artificial nature.
Her empty stare, tilted head and unfocused background and the passing man looking at her. It gives me the impression of her being an alien put into the busy streets of HongKong, never having seen human civilsation.
Her make up makes her entire appearance highly stylised and artificial.
>>17265650
Get out from your parents house. Don't invite people if you are getting irritated by people judging your wallpapers. The photos you share are sleeping women, this implies drugged women getting raped by normie eye. You might as well use loli wallpapers
It's the artsy, non-commercial aspect of it.
A Transformers wallpaper with a huge Megan Fox and official branding would be fine.
>>17265652
>Wallpapers with humans are low brow.
this, but the pictures themselves are nice and he shouldn't stop using them only because some mouthbreathing puritan bitches get triggered
>>17265632
>mfw I like these kinds of pictures on insta
>mfw people can see what I liked
>mfw everyone thinks I'm a perv
>>17265893
whoa whoa whoa. slow down.
Liking those kind of pictures on instagram and having them on your wallpaper are implicitly different things.
All these photos look like they are from Instagram. Liking someone's photo album they are sharing is different than taking that person's photo, blowing it up, and then putting it on your wall.
>>17265907
Not really. How do you figure?
You do understand that OP is talking about the "wallpaper" of his phone/computer, not literal printed wall coverings
>>17265838
>>17265883
I personally find the sexualisation of a known person a person we all recognise (an actress or model) to be more provocative and sexualising than the simple picture depicting a shadowy figure where only the contours can be seen.
>>17265856
Thank you anon.
You eloquently worded how i feel about these pictures and how they depict an intimacy far off from the commercial sexualisation of our everyday lives, refocusing on the intimate nature of sexuality and proximity and trust.
It is strange how people have become so adversed toward bare skin even in regions which are utterly non sexualised.
>>17265889
contradicting yourself anon.
>>17265882
so should we only use plank white, in order to be politically correct and hide our interests and artistic preferences in a broom cupboard in the cellar?
I don't understand how you can see rape in these pictures.
>Sleeping = rape
>sure.
>too much TV for you anon.
>>17265927
>contradicting yourself anon.
how so?
>>17265632
This is pasta...
>>17265907
tumblr mostly not insta.
>>17265917
have thought of printing and framing my favourites, but cannot seem to find appropriate quality. Also would rather print my own work than others.
>>17265934
>wallpaper with people are low brow
>nice wallpapers
contradiction.
>probably the most sexual one in the collection.
>>17265949
>nice wallpapers
nice pictures
>>17265917
Yeah. I am aware. Maybe I should have used like and as to make the analogy more obvious. Either way, there's a total difference still. The wallpaper on his screens is still a semi-permanent decoration like a painting on your wall is for your house. Liking someone's old Polaroids (Instagram) is not the same as putting those Polaroids on the cork-board in your bedroom (wallpaper). The implication begins to appear then.
>>17265927
I don't see anything wrong with these pictures. I'm just saying this is what normal people see you retard.
Yes if you don't want to be judged, don't invite judgemental people to your room or find less judgemental people in your life. It's that simple. Or find a program that changes your wallpapers for normal people.
Since you didn't deny, I'm assuming you live with parents, so you need to find a new house for yourself.
>>17265953
>but 'using them' implies that they are used as wallpapers.
>>17265968
>muh hand fetish
>>17265949
>>17265968
who uses these resolutions for any wallpaper.
>>17265964
sorry wrong guessing anon
>university student
>own studio
>notebook use (ie portable)
It is more about why Playbody tier is more acceptable than artistically composed indie pictures.
>>17265978
they are blown up. Yes not ideal. Have not come around to adapt them to 1080p. But considering they are grainy to begin with this doesn't really pose that big of a deal.
I use this picture as my phone's background. I like looking at it and societal norms are absurd.
i don't really give a fuck, just keep posting more OP these are great
>why do people find me creepy when I do creepy things
>>17265994
this pictures is more akin to the playboy pictures.
Yes, Japanese gravure is a lot more tasteful than western nudes. But they as well are often very explicit in nature + they come with names.
Your pictures has her backside as a focal point. I tend try to limit those pictures as i find them rather vulgar as wallpapers.
There are exception of course.
>>17265632
Sorry for the reality check but it isn't just down to these images that get you called these names.
>>17265968
not really, I just wanted to point out you're not a total pleb, because even though 'Wallpapers with humans are low brow.' the pics themselves are nice. "using them" was on a completely unrelated note to that. I just think you shouldn't stop doing what you think is ok only because it triggers some bitch.
>>17266010
I think this one is better. The contrast between the beach, the sky, and her understated, almost animalistic humanity blends together to meet perfection.
>>17266007
what is creepy about listening to a specific genre while enjoying a photo slideshow?
>You see a lot less of her than you would on a regular playboy picture.
>>17266014
you don't even know me. How can you make such an assumption?
Also it is not name calling, rather a general association people make with me and these pictures.
>>17266006
at least try to contribute anon
>>17266017
ok i get it.
Thanks for the encouragement anon.
Welcome to contribute.
>>17266021
open sexualisation of a culture based around modesty.
focus on backside too blatant.
not my cup of tea anon.
>>17265981
then you have SHITTY friends
>>17266103
not even friends. Just general environment.
>>17265981
If it's your friends judging you you should be having this conversation with them instead of randoms on the Internet. Some great points were brought up in this thread so it would help prepare you a bit. Maybe they're just fucking with you and pushing your buttons as friends are wont to do. If they're good friends they'll understand you have certain tastes.
>>17266113
I have asked my friends and they themselves were never able to explain it closely.
And apart from this, my friends are usually don't comment anymore, as they have gotten used too them. It is more people who hardly know me, who are confused/ask me or non-verbally judge me.
It was more about understanding the underpinning behind why commercial men magazine sexualisation is more acceptable than artistic depiction of women.
>>17265790
If I were a girl / SO, I would find a guy having a known actress as a wallpaper a lot more offensive than a non-discript random girl, of whom the face is not even visible.
Reducing the picture to its effect (ie the intimacy it tries to evoke/depict) is a lot less insulting on a personal level than knowing that a guy is fawning over a known celebrity (over you, in case of an SO)
>it draws less comparisons between you as a female and the woman in the picture.
>>17265632
>avoid direct eye contact
>only subtle and/or non-intrusive nudes
This is where you go wrong. It seems to them that you like creeping up on girls that don't know you're there.
Just use pictures of yachts, cities or mansions as a wallpaper.
Pic related, it's Macau and my favorite wallpaper. I can dump more socially acceptable wallpapers if you want.
It reeks of desperation and immaturity.
The sexual thrill of a a Maxim photo shoot mixed with a Macy's catalog.
No intimacy in your own life so you play the voyeur
All behind a veil of 'ITS JUST ART BRO' that sounds like the shit pedos say.
If you cared about people or art, or whatever you say you wouldn't fixate on females.
>>17267370
this post reeks of a roastie
>>17267401
#triggered
>>17267370
What this guy is saying.
Also here another wallpaper suggestion.
