I think we've all come to the same conclusion here, but I'll say my part in this. There is a distinct difference between artistic nudity and sexual nudity, and we all realize this. Artistic nudity is done for the express purpose of studying the human anatomy, the form and splendor of the figure's curves and structure. If you look at artistic pieces like Michelangelo's David or, as mentioned before, the Birth of Venus, it's clear to see the artist was sourcing the body's flexibility and sculpted capabilities rather than imparting any sexual connotations from the work.
Contrast this with the hundreds of hundreds of digital schlock photos cheaply posted on Deviantart in their artistic nudity section, which clearly show off female and male human anatomy in a manner than invites sexuality and arousal. The sculptures mentioned prior are nudity as artistic value. These photos are clearly far from that.
As mentioned, it's clear some people find any nudity an arousing thing. But I argue for the vast majority of us, we can appreciate the human figure despite any sexual connotations we may glean from a cursory look, and appreciate better the flexibility, malleability, and ever-evolving, ever-changing form and splendor of the human figure.
...I apologize if this doesn't make any sense. I'm not really the kind of person who takes a closer look at art like this, I admit.