(I'm pulling text from subchapter III.2.7, "Aphrodite", but my pulls are not necessarily contiguous in the original.)
> Aphrodite's sphere of activity is immediately and sensibly apparent: the joyous consummation of sexuality. Aphrodisia, aphrodisiazein as a verb, denotes quite simply the act of love, and in the Odyssey, the name of the goddess is already used in the same sense.
> However impious the apotheosis of sexuality may seem in light of the Christian tradition, modern sensibility can nevertheless also appreciate how in the experience of love the loved one and indeed the whole world appears transfigured and joyously intensified, making all else seem insignificant: a tremendous power is revealed, a great deity.
> Behind the figure of Aphrodite there clearly stands the ancient Semitic Goddess of love, Ishtar-Astarte [...the text lists many correspondences between the two deities...] In the process of transmission from East to West a part was probably played by frontal representations of the naked goddess
> Unabashed acceptance of sexuality is, however, not a matter of course even in Greece.
> In the iconography, the naked oriental figure was supplanted as early as the first half of the seventh century by the normal representation of the goddess [emphasis added] with long, sumptuous robes and the high crown of the goddess, polos. Fine attire is Aphrodite's specialty, most notably necklaces and occasionally brightly colored robes intended to give an oriental effect.
> It was not until about 340 that the statue of a naked Aphrodite apparently preparing to take a bath was created for the sanctuary in Cnidos by Praxiteles; for centuries this figure remained the most renowned representation of the goddess of love, the embodiment of all womanly charms. The statue was displayed in the round so that it could be admired from all sides; Greek sources suggest that it excited more voyeurism than piety.
That is the tradition into which the Venus de Milo falls. Let me suggest to you that your ideas of how people can view their religious icons are rather more restricted than historical practice would justify. We're talking about a statue showing the apotheosis of sexuality flaunting her supernatural sex appeal.
Sexual content was routine even outside the context of Aphrodite specifically. For example:
> At the doors of the anaktoron [in Samothrace] two bronze statues of ithyphallic [priapic] Hermes were to be seen. Originally these could have been just phallic boundary markers, but the mythical explanation was that Hermes had got into this state of arousal because he beheld Persephone.
(Subchapter VI.1.3, "The Kabeiroi and Samothrace")
EDIT:
From Wikipedia, on the Aphrodite of Cnidos:
> The statue [...] was so lifelike that it even aroused men sexually, as witnessed by the tradition that a young man broke into the temple at night and attempted to copulate with the statue, leaving a stain on it.
>>> It would be hard to defend that claim as to the creation of the statue.
On the other hand, I feel fairly confident in claiming that women wearing nothing but a sheet that doesn't quite cover their butt are considered sexy in the modern day too.
Would you believe that, say, souvenir postcards of nude Aphrodites sell better than souvenir postcards of Zeus? Why do you think that might be?
If you want to argue that the Venus de Milo is "nonsexual" nudity because it's historical art, you need to deal with its historical significance, which is as a tawdry sex icon.
If you want to argue that the way the Greeks viewed the statue doesn't matter, you need to deal with the way a statue of a naked woman failing to cover herself with a sheet would be viewed in the modern day, which is... as a tawdry sex icon.
