That’s the whole point!
Nothing is base or noble in art, unless personal emotions and perceptions are ascribed to an act, thought, idea or object.
It’s not about female flesh but more about the treatment of the subject. It’s about a metaphor for temptation, in it’s most basic form, and how naked [in some cases, literally] we can get in examining an issue or a concept.
Hard as one might try, to evade the primal and to don the garb of vain sophistication, we merely touch the reflection of a truth, not the truth itself. The human has not become an ‘evolved’ being because of the superficial accretions brought upon by ‘civilization’.
For e.g. you, Mahadevan, are not rendered any more ‘decent’ than another man just because you express a distaste for ‘baser instincts’. I’d say you just have an incomplete and unhealthy notion of our primeval instincts, of nakedness in general. Or perhaps you are shy to admit in public that you are such a slave to it. So either you are expressing a flawed perception that has been force-fed by the world (which, surely, is not your fault at all) or you are merely trying to gain [probably female] approval by expressing thus.

The artist merely questions [our relationship with] the real self and the space that has come to exist between. So it’s better to get to the core and examine human values there, than to beat around with ornamental fluff, which can be mildly entertaining yet prove no real purpose in the end.

Take your pick.