I think it's much more complicated than that, considering all the great art that contains clothed people, or no males, and even no people. Michelangelo's David is less homoerotic and more idealized; it seems to me to be more a celebration of the human form in a way that was permissible by the contemporary Church (and perhaps Michaelangelo's own beliefs) because it was regarding a Biblical story. Donatello's several Davids are more dynamic and story-like, but are nearly the equal in 'greatness', as is Bernini's. None of those do more than whisper homoeroticism to me, if at all, even if Michelangelo's does. Rodin's the thinker, Bernini's Propserine (and Pluto) and his Apollo and Daphne all seem more about perfecting the human form and telling the story than about eroticism.
The vast majority of the audience would have definitely paid attention to the nakedness, humans have not changed about sensuality and thinking in recorded history, but the statues weren't about being gay; they were about being 'perfect'.