I'd like some advice. Is this picture considered safe for

>>18135289
Are you insecure fatty or religious nut?

>>18135289

Even if its considered sfw here, it's not appropriate to use such wallpapers in the work place. Its bound to upset the women

Depends where you work. Tattoo parlor? Sfw. Accounting firm? Nsfw.

Thnx fello coworker i needed to fap

>>18135385
Why is this?

>>18135305
yeah, technically SFW but still inappropriate.

>>18135289

Nothing more tacky than scantily clad women as wallpapers. No self-respecting adult should do that. Even worse if it's at work.

>>18135289
I would tell them not to use that as their wallpaper. Straight up. This isn't your house and that shit is unprofessional. I don't know where you work though.

That's basically soft core porn. It's not nude, but it's not "appropriate". At my work place, there was this big retarded debacle with people getting upset at people bringing exercise magazines in because they're partially nude, I guess.

File: 1489431170594.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>18135443
What about say... this one?

File: 1422862870070.png (437KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 512x384px

>>18135289
HAHA
Pls tell me you're joking.

Nigga no don't use this for work you dumb cunt.
FFS her ass is showing and you can kinda see her tits.

>>18135289
OP, stop using that as your wallpaper at work bro.

File: American-psycho-bateman-1-.jpg (216KB, 590x322px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 590x322px

>>18135432
> why is this
It objectifies women as a sexual object.

Put the sexy shit away and use a company logo for a desktop wallpaper.

>>18135469
It's nowhere near as bad. Still, a mildly geeky movie wallpaper doesn't scream "professional." We really can't answer this for you. It depends on where you work and what kind of workplace culture it has. Some places that would be absolutely fine. Other places it would at least prompt a few raised eyebrows.

If you have to ask, then you probably shouldn't do it. Why can't you just pick some completely generic wallpaper for your work computer? How much time do you even spend staring at your background at work?

>>18135478
But why does this not apply to, for example, the tattoo parlor?

>>18135487
>We really can't answer this for you. It depends on where you work and what kind of workplace culture it has.
Obviously. Which is why i phrased the question to ask about your co-workers and workplace.

And now i kind of think it's an interesting thought experiment.

>>18135490
People aren't distracted by too much skin. The job revolves around all parts of the skin.

>>18135490
It depends on the formality of the workplace. Certain jobs such as mechanic, tattoo parlor, construction, etc. are considered informal. Then you have semi-formal places like restaurant jobs. And then you have formal places like offices, which can get to extremely formal in their executive branches.

The more casual the workplace, the more likely you can get away with casual things like everyday clothing, visible tattoos, long hair, piercings and body mods, and NSFW images.

The more formal, the more restrictive you have to be with your behavior. People can get fired from government jobs for NSFW stuff.

Here's a cheat sheet. if you wouldn't do it in an interview for the job, don't do it at the job.

>>18135490

Because in a tattoo parlour there are half naked people getting inked every day, so a bare ass on someone's wall paper isn't that big of a deal. It's a more informal setting, so different standards for professionalism apply.

File: 1489731622428.jpg (706KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

706KB, 2560x1440px

This one isn't professional either. (Unless you work in the food processing industry.)

>>18135289
lots of people here taking a desktop background pretty seriously, lol.
man how many man hours have been spent considering your screen saver?

seems pretty irrelevant to me.
if you have to ask then the answer is no.
keep your professional life professional if you want to advance in your field.

and more importantly, stop stressing irrelevant things. i mean how much does your background matter? that a big thing in your life? lol.

Mostly i think it's interesting how something can be considered safe for work on the web while, as the replies to this thread show, not actually being safe for real work.

>>18135530
yeah thats pretty interesting if you assume that every job entails the same level or formality.
not sure why you would though :)

>>18135289

no. there is this misconception that 'safe for work' simply means that it is not legally defined as pornography, but its not. safe for work means that its something that your co workers or employer won't distasteful.

say a client saw your desktop, would they be upset about it? the women woudl at the very least, and the men would think you're too much of a pervert to go five seconds without seeing a naked woman.

>>18135539
Obviously not. But at least my impression from this thread is that the average level of formality would consider op nsfw.

I thought only literal 12 year olds put this kind of shit as their wallpaper. How about you grow the fuck up, OP

File: 1489633958429.jpg (774KB, 2560x1707px) Image search: [Google]

774KB, 2560x1707px

What about this one? Is this distasteful?

who cares lol. why are you investing so much of your time and attention in a desktop background?
don't you have work to be doing?!

>>18135543
This

Nsfw means something different on 4chan. People get away with nearly nude alot here on blue boards but most of them are smart enough not to be seen browsing such places while working in the first place.
The idea is that if when you're in the break room on your phone or laptop and a coworker happens to walk by, they're not gonna see someone's close up of their asshole or dick pics.

Your big ol monitor in the office area you're working is like a billboard.
Makes it seem like you're vying for negative attention when you should be focusing on your job.

>>18135565

because shes clothed, no, but if I were you I'd just avoid putting beautiful women as decoration.

>>18135570
I'm off work by now. And it's not really about the wallpaper but about what people actually consider safe for work at real work places, and why.

>>18135576
op is also clothed

>>18135579
at my work people hang up those calenders with naked women on them.

at my old job OP's pic would not fly.

kinda like asking what the best kinda shoe is... depends on what your doing.

>>18135584

if you're dumb enough not to see the difference, you're too dumb for me to explain it to you.

>>18135571
So you're saying that scantily clad women are ok in the break room but not at your work station?

>>18135590

a split second on your private screen? yeah.

full time on your work screen? no.

>>18135289

does that answer your question?

>>18135586
t..thanks

>>18135591
But obviously it's not full time because most of the time a wallpaper will be obscured by actual work.

>>18135593
no

>>18135601

okay, just explain that to your boss and im sure he'd love that. explain it to the employees that its okay to have a woman wearing butt floss on your computer because 'its usually obscured by work'

>>18135605

it should.

File: 1488661726695.jpg (586KB, 2048x1367px) Image search: [Google]

586KB, 2048x1367px

>>18135607
But why can you not explain to me why it's not okay?

Sure there is the different levels of formality, but that really is just another way of saying "because i said so".

What about this one? It has no butt in it.

>>18135626

>why can't you explain to me why its not okay?

mostly to just further insult your intelligence but sure I'll bite.

in the second pic, the asian doesn't have any nudity. by clothed i mean you dont see any of her innapropriate parts.

whereas in your OP image that a mod deleted for not being safe for work, she had her ass showing.

as a general rule safe for work in images means the same as what you'd be wear to work. you wouldnt show up to work with your butt hanging out.

as such a woman raising her top to reveal her bra is also nsfw.

again, if you disagree, juts show it to your boss and see what he says.

but if oyu're smart you will stop trying to use women as a decoration on your computer, or really in general. it gives off a really skeevy 'im so desperate for girls that i have to be bale to look at naked ones every five seconds' vibe.

>>18135626
>"because i said so".
no, that's wrong. your wrong.

you are trying to generalize irreconcilable specifics. you are trying to model disparate systems with one abstraction.

formality on a construction site is not the formality in an office and nothing you say will change that, there will never be a set of rules to determine how to behave in both situations.

your just oversimplifying. stop it.

>>18135643
butt is inappropriate. sure, i buy that.
so ok, i buy that argument about lifting up your shirt. but you also wouldn't show up to work with bare shoulders and glistening wet?

A desktop wallpaper is a background decoration. "I'm so desperate for <subject> that i have to bale to look at <attractive renditions of subject> every five seconds" doesn't really sit with me.

>>18135626

All of the backrounds of women are inappropriate simply for the fact that they give off a sexual vibe. Even if the clothing covers the body, they're still being objectified. It would be the same with a woman having backrounds of a half naked man or a man pulling his jeans down to show his pelvis. A man in the water so you can't tell if he's naked but its somewhat implied as hes giving you bedroom eyes.
It's an unspoken understanding that those things really belong at home. Sorry if you're too sperg to get it but that's all there is to it.
Using a lotr pic or nature pics is fine. Those images don't conjure ideas of sex.

>>18135651
>you are trying to model disparate systems with one abstraction.
Good point. This is actually kind of what i do. It's my thing.

But i didn't mean to say that all workplaces should have the same level of formality. Just that differing to formality at any given workplace without question is really unsatisfying as an answer.

>>18135684
>is really unsatisfying as an answer.
you seem to be the only one unsatisfied here.
but i get ya. abstracting is useful. not sure this one is, but i wont judge.

File: 16946863.jpg (61KB, 620x930px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 620x930px

>>18135681
So it's all about "sex is bad, m'kay?"

>>18135696
Sex isn't bad, it's just private and considered not appropriate at work.

>>18135676

lets put it this way then.

if you went to the beach with your girlfriend, and took a picture of her in the water, you would show it to your boss over lunch.

you would not however show a picture of her ass, nor would you show a picture of her sexily raising her shirt.

get it?

>>18135696

sex is not bad, its just not something you do at work.

for instance, everyone poops, there's nothing wrong with it, but thats something you keep in private instead of coming out to the middle of the office and dropping a deuce in a bucket.

its not that something is bad, its that something is private. and there's nothing wrong with that.

I'm a nudist and even i can see why you shouldn't have half naked women on your desktop at work.

frankly the fact that you're this obsessed with women is unsettling.

>>18135733
are you saying my desktop background of feces is inappropriate for work?

>>18135720
No, not really. Somehow showing the same bits in two different pictures make one ok and the other one not.

>>18135733
I'm not this obsessed with women. I'm this obsessed with social norms.

>>18135742

it depends on if its tasteful.

>>18135745

okay. good luck with that.

>>18135746
i wouldn't' taste feces but ill keep that in mind.