Interesting.
There’s a whole academic debate around what art is - and what is good art. Two contrasting approaches:
Kaufman and Sternberg
1) is it original? Perhaps the answer to your drawings is to some extent. Tom of Finland has certainly produced pencil sketches on a comparable topic. Are you producing a self portrait, ie your own cock? That might nudge towards greater originality.
2) high quality. Competent pencil sketch. Yes, a tick here.
3) appropriate. Difficult one. What is the intention? Does it work?
I think you’ve a case for saying that this is art using the K&S criteria but how good I’m not sure.
A contrast is Rodney Jones. He looks not at qualities which can be perceived in the art but what the art has done. Has it brought about some change in the world? This could be small (so some lpsg viewers find them erotic or just xxx) but this really isn’t enough - to be good or great art it needs to be a big change. If the pictures go on to change society’s views on sexuality then they really are great art. If only you ever see them 5hey are not.
Yes ithe pictures can be arousing and stimulating, but this on its own doesn’t make them art. There has to be something more than just this. Maybe there is something more in these.