When I read the rules, I understood that sexual content was allowed, but not for the cart (to sum it up). I didn't consider this nude to be "explicit material", the same way I don't consider a statue from an ancient greek goddess to be "explicit material". This is not an erotic game.
Though many, many statues from antique times to present
are more or less erotic, (and so are renaissanse paintings. Venus is already mentioned. Check the description of it on
this wiki 
) and many were meant to be so. It's just a form of eroticism that's more or less
accepted (depending on time, place and context), through the social contract that may come with whatever's considered fine arts, or in the post-modern, just art, and often on the fluctuating term that it
doesn't go too far.
With sculptural, physical objects, it is simpler to make erotic aspects generally accepted, since point of view and mode of looking is largely up to the onlooker which is granted an almost completely autonomous role, and the context is largely up to the exhibitor on a case to case basis, compared to many other media.
Examples: media, such as cinema and picture, are more up to the artist than the viewer. Cinema fixates the time dimension; among other things. You cannot control it like you would in a book. Compared to a book yet again, cinema generally hard-codes larger areas within the realm of imagination by not leaving as many blanks to interpret. You (probably) have a narrative, and concrete visuals, and tempo, decided for you.
Picture (itself embedded in cinema and video gaming), fixates what is called a
scopic regime. It is hard to describe what a scopic regime is in just a sentence or two, but the outline is this: It is mostly the sum of projection, space distortion, movement/animation, object emphasis, and point of view, and it dictates the framework for how the onlooker scopically and emotionally interacts with a picture by limiting the field of mode of looking while at the same time making an area within that field more preferrable, easy, or rewarding (often to the artists' or producers' ideal picture of the consumer of the work; that is).
More correctly used, a scopic regime was a term originally coined to describe these effects as paradigms that came and went with historical epoques, but nowadays, cultural production doesn't let itself be sliced up and organized as conveniently.
In gross generalization of european art history, this means
a baroque painting with skewed projection, highly designed light, movement, and engaging actor objects is more likely to emotionally or bodily engage a viewer than an early renaissanse painting of
a perfect symmetrical vanishing point picture of a street with objects that's mostly there to represent themselves in a static or pictographic manner.
Or here's a thought/experience experiment. Let's say we have a painting of a scene with people in it. Maybe the last supper of Jesus or a team of people working together on something. Anything. Let's say we watch it plain and simple, from a few meters. Then, we watch the same scene through a peeping hole cut out from black painted cardboard. It feels different, even when imagining it, right? That's a slice of the emotional and cognitive difference that scopic regimes can achieve. The thing is that no pictoral work of art is entirely transparent or neutral, every work has a scopic regime embedded, consciously or not. It can't be viewed objectively (though a scopic regime can create the illusion of such a perspective and role). In other words, some aspects of the work is preset, and to some extent, determining the experience of the onlooker.
So, it's really not as simple as determining a relationship between something being erotic and being explicit, and it's not as simple as basing expliticity (is that a word) on personal experience and standards. One has to compare the work of art at hand with patterns in cultural production.
Now to some criticism of the validity of your statement: How is the combination of point of view in relation to the object and its emphasis on fetishizing certain parts of a female coded body
not erotic? This makes the game experience
partly erotic. Nudity is only a small part of it. There's a
gaze happening between camera, frame, and object. And there's focus on body aesthetics. And then there's the gender role aspect. I'm not saying this because i think eroticism is automatically bad (i don't, i think there's a spectrum), i'm saying this because i don't share the viewpoint on whether it's erotic or not, and because eroticism meddles with individuals' sense of privacy and intimacy, so it's worth thinking twice about before writing something off as "not erotic (or explicit) according to me".
Wow, this post got way longer than i had hoped to keep it. I hope it doesn't steal too much attention from your project.
Will keep this thread updated.
