It's like you fags straight up ignore one or more of the three qualifications for posting images in this thread. Not even OP followed all three.
>Tasteful
Holy shit too many of these wallpapers are either so blatant in their eroticism or sub-par in their art that you'd have trouble defending your decision to make them your wallpaper if anyone were to use your PC and see them.
>inb4 hurr durr no one's gonna use my PC doesn't matter lolThat's not the point. In the hypothetical situation that they were, you'd have to be able to defend your decision in putting a half naked anime girl as your desktop background with reasons like you like the art style (e.g.
>>1895650), or there's more going on in the picture than the anime girl (e.g.
>>1893585). Only work-safe fetishes are "tasteful". Imagine your boss was looking at them. Would you be fired?
>Erotic
Some of this shit isn't even lewd or arousing. Everyone has their own fetishes and won't get excited by things another person would, but they should at least be sexually suggestive. How would a picture like
>>1893972, or
>>1891539 be erotic? You can see the contour of the nipple in
>>1891539 but calling it erotic is a stretch. For example, people without a foot fetish can understand how a picture like
>>1885470 or
>>1898336 is potentially arousing to those who do. The point is you can see how these images are sexually suggestive or invoke arousal even if you don't understand the fetish the image appeals to.
>Wallpaper
The image should be 1920x1080 (the standard monitor size and resolution). If larger, it should be in the same aspect ratio unless designed for use on multiple monitors. Not following this classifier doesn't mean the picture is bad, just that it's not a good wallpaper. I'm not even gonna fuck with mobile wallpapers because phones do whatever the fuck they want. You can tell a phone wallpaper apart from a desktop wallpaper because phone wallpapers are usually in portrait.
