No it's not...
As ever, tastes differ. Met, , , Hegre are examples of a specific genre. Eolake Stobblehouse, he of , calls it "simple nudes" and explains it in this article: http://domai.com/text/DOMAI-style.html.
He protests that nudes have traditionally been placed either in the fine arts department, or in the porn department. He is not attacking either porn or fine arts, but he believes that the beauty of the female form is the primary objective of neither. To qualify as Art, a picture must transcend its subject. The model is secondary to some "higher purpose" and often becomes "de-eroticized". In the case of porn, the model is secondary to some action of a sexual nature. Nothing wrong with that, but not what everybody wants. The concept of "simple nudes" is to focus on the model and celebrate her unadorned beauty.
One way to understand what good photography is is to look some of the photo shoots at met & friends and then visit the same girl at another site. All too often, the magic is gone. The nymph that you met by the lake side, the siren that was playing in the waves now inhabits a suburban bed-sit. The spell is broken, Cinderella has turned back into the girl-next-door. And when she takes her clothes off for another photographer, you feel like taking her to the nearest lingerie boutique so she doesn't have to wear those silly panties next time.
But again, tastes differ. Not everybody is an incurable romantic like me. Sites like www.abbywinters.com demonstrate that some people would probably prefer Met's typical little princess in her girl-next-door incarnation. Not to mention the millions of sites that are there for the people who will find her boring until she stuffs something inside her.
So I guess we're all different. The world would be a boring place if we were all the same. And the web would be a poorer place without Met & friends...