Which is why I think it would be really interesting to run a set of Robert Mapplethorpe's photos on it to see how they are classified. Some of his photographs are much more explicit while at the same time are much more specifically art. He photographed a lot of posed homoerotic BDSM Large Format photos specifically staged to develop tension, but not necessarily or even usually sexual tension or disgust tension, between the viewer and the person posed in the photo as a person and as a form. Alternatively he photographed large format calla lilies or orchids that are explicitly erotic. The photos were almost always black and white, and were s seen as controversial when he was alive and then again right when he died.

Then, in contrast, run some Japanese woodblocks in the Ukiyo-e style, since many of those are actually explicit. (including straight up porn woodblocks) Most Japanese woodblocks are also highly stylized as well, and it can take a moment to realize what is going on, including in some of the pornographic or hinting at the explict/could be explict/explict personalities.

I'm not going to say all Robert Mapplethorpes are safe for all work environments, nor all Japanese woodblocks, but I am curious to know if it can see the difference of person in homoerotic outfit who looks physical and gets you to notice his form, vs a Suzuki Harunobu being a bit more sly but more more explict in he is telling a story and his story is sex

I don't think you can take something which was once meant to be erotic pornography and add time to make it an 'artsy nude.' But if you can point to an example from the history of art, that would make your claim more reasonable.