Looking at the body parts used in evil acts is going to bring evil thoughts. There's no reason for a man to be walking around with his thing sticking out unless he plans to use it for something.
I met someone once who called himself a "christian nudist". To my ears, that sounded as contradictory as "gay christian" does to some of you.
I'd also argue an unnatural censorship of anything related to male or female helps culture the sick society we have today, which too often can't even define the difference between a man and a woman. While I am not a female, my understanding is that females aren't generally aroused by appearances - so it's a hard call to describe the art as pornography. If it were, would Michelangelo really have made David's manhood comparable in size to a baby carrot? (And an uncircumcised one at that!?!)
Circumcision is one of the main covenants of the bible, and is spoken about quite openly. While the focus is on circumcision of the heart in the New Testament, surely you admit it would be difficult to understand the metaphor without having a cursory understanding of male anatomy? Men and women have different bodies, but having a basic understanding of this, or portraying it in art, is not pornography. Need I go into Song of Solomon, where the maiden's breasts are spoken of openly, and descriptive analogies are made to other interesting features of female anatomy?
Just because art features specifically male or female anatomy doesn't make it pornographic, and even references to love making do not necessarily make art pornographic (e.g. Song of Solomon). Masculinity, femininity and the union thereof in marriage is part of God's created order, and a Puritanical condemnation of anything simply because it is remotely related to one or more of these only leads to suppression which will later result in perversion.