>>2648724Yes, sorta like that. I appreciate the effort, you're on the right track there.
>so it can at most get the effect that created anon here Actually the example you posted was slightly better. The girl with the tiny bit of slit exposed is obviously the focus of that image unfortunately. I noticed it fairly quickly as i scanned my eyes over her. As for the image you posted. It really did look like a SFW image for the first 20 seconds that i was actively searching for the nudity. Your example is not as good as I'd like but if i hadn't been told it was NSFW beforehand then who knows how long it would've taken me to realize that there was a nipple there. A few minutes? hours? I mean how long to casual computer users even stare to the wallpaper while using on the average day.
Thought you posted a SFW image by mistake which means it passes even if barely. I would, ideally, like the nudity to more hidden though.
>images where there are many girlsDoesn't necessarily need to be like that, it was simply one example. Images with tons of detail, maybe in architecture for example may also work. As this serves as a distraction. There is no limit to how lewd the nudity or sexual act in the image can be, it simply needs to be hidden in there. If the hidden element is something that 99% of people miss, even after a few glances then it works. I think it would be really cool to set an image like this on a family, school or work computer that appears to be SFW but has a racy secret.
