Uh honestly, I am only vaguely aware of what you are talking about, but there are a few things to consider:
1) The narrative that sexual content is censored nowadays is usually flatly wrong. For the most part, sexual content is added in order to simply add monetary value to the work in question. The work began as a visual novel, yes, but those are rarely products of vision, rather they exist as products of the financial pressures artists face. That is to say: this current animation is actually more likely to represent the artist's vision than a visual novel.
2) In the end, text can only be seen as text, and contextual considerations remain just that -outside of the work itself. So, it really does not matter in the end what the artist's intention was, what matters is the ability of the artist to communicate that intention. Really, most TV, in the States as well as Japan, have their content altered by the stations that air them. Sometimes to fit the basic form of the medium, such as run-time, sometimes for content. Political and philosophical content tends to be a much larger issue in the visual media now, as violence and sexual content have become ubiquitous due to their perceived monetary value -real or not.
I did watch Garden of Sinners, and assuming that is from the same people as this show, then it may be safe to argue that they never really intended for any major sexual content to be present in the first place. If we wish to make arguments at all about intent.