The issue of "safe for work" browsing is a distraction, not a core problem. I don't think we often figure explicit images prominently on mainspace articles with unrelated or tenuously connected subjects.
More importantly, no one has argued that [[Herpes]] should be text-only. It's tangents like this, where we get embroiled in arguments against side ideas, that lead a serious discussion of the core problems astray. The merest suggestion that Wikipedia should have a "safe for work" version will doom any proposal for image handling reform, because it is a legitimate magnet for censorship concern.
I think what we should focus on is protecting the subjects of these images, and give the backseat to protecting readers. Readers are a self-selecting and self driven group, by and large they are able right now to avoid viewing content that might offend them. Image models who are minors or unwitting subjects can be harmed by us without any conscious choice, just like BLP subjects. That is where our primary responsibility in this area lies.
Nathan