Frankly, we Calvinists don't even disagree this much on Baptism ("Okay, y'all there wanna dunk adults while we here want to sprinkle infants... but we're all 100% agreed that, contra Rome, Baptism does Not Regenerate, right? Alright, so we have disagreements as to the Mode and Practice, but we're all theologically agreed on where Rome has it wrong") or Eschatology ("Pre-Mills, A-Mills, and Post-Mills, oh my! Look, we all agree that God is in Control and it will all "pan out" to His Glory in the end, so we're all PAN-Millennialists anyway, right?").... but you, alone among the Free Republic Romans, have managed to create real disagreement amongst the supposedly "schismatic" and "sectarian" Calvinists.
Speaking for myself, I tend to agree with Jude24. "Having a naked Christ on a crucifix in no way insults Christ, but reminds us of the degredation his creation heaped upon him. We need to be reminded of what, precisely, a crucifixion entails." We are, I think, compelled to admit that no manner in which Christ chose to display Himself (and as you correctly say, He did so choose) can ever be called "blasphemous"; for Christ, in howsoever He presented Himself, was ipso facto never Blasphemous. And I think that you are right that in His humble presentation of Himself, His "humiliation", He did "image" for us the total and unreserved gift of self which was His Incarnation and particularly His Atonement -- and which is properly reflected in Marriage.
But on first viewing (and this is the first time I've seen the Michelangelo; not from your post, but it's the immediately-third image one sees on a Google image-search of "crucifix"), it is an arresting, disturbing Image -- because you're right, it is a pretty intense Reality to contemplate.
I'm reminded of a Spectator article on Holbein's "Dead Christ in the Tomb", and Dostoevsky's response thereto....
Hans Holbein the Younger’s ‘Dead Christ in the Tomb’
It is a painting of unprecedented — and harrowing — realism. Coffin-sized, it shows Christ’s coffin with one side removed to reveal an emaciated body on a crumpled white shroud. Rigor mortis has set in, the hands and feet still claw in their death agony, the mouth and eyes remain open. Muscle tone has begun to collapse and the flesh has taken on the green hue of putrefaction (forensic examination has put the degree of corruption as being consistent with a three-day-old corpse — Christ’s three days and three nights in the tomb). The man is not handsome, his body is not beautiful: he has a pointed, oriental beard and a corrugated, washboard chest. This is unequivocally not a body at peace but a human corpse in an unquiet grave — it is painting as post mortem. The Easter story started with Jesus declaring to his disciples ‘This is my body’ -- well, here it is.
...What we do know is that it had a powerful effect on later viewers. When Dostoevsky saw the painting in 1867, he stood before it for a full 20 minutes without moving. According to his wife ‘on his agitated face there was a terrified expression’, and in the end she had to drag him away, fearing the onset of an epileptic attack. Dostoevsky reused the episode when he wrote The Idiot — one of the characters, Prince Myshkin, remarking: ‘That picture! Why, some people might lose their faith by looking at that picture.’
But Dostoevsky was right, the ‘Dead Christ’, although it seems atheistic, is indeed a picture about faith.... The ‘Dead Christ’ is one man’s proof that art is capable not only of stimulating reflection but indeed can offer an encounter with the divine: it is as if he were saying, ‘This is what painting can do.’
Holbein understood and demonstrated a very simple truth: for a man so utterly dead to come back to life really will require nothing less than a miracle. ~~ Michael Prodger, "The Word Made Flesh"; Spectator, 4-19-03