Good, you have a trace of methodology

Everything you said is, precisely, methodological concerns.

Those are a start.

Another methodological concern:

That said, in regards to 'not sexual' one can assume by default that something is 'not sexual' until there is a good reason to think it is. For example: I assume rocks are not sexual. I don't have the capability to prove a negative but that is a fair assumption because rocks have never demonstrated sexuality.

Of course, problematically again for your request: sexuality isn't just a thing present to living forms. For example, Michelangelo's David is a rock, but to me it is sexual because he looks so muscular and sexually attractive.

So, decide (for once!!),

is sexuality

- intrinsic: therefore present on the study case regardless of the observer's own mood and inclinations,

or

- extrinsic: therefore set upon the study case by the observer's own mood and inclinations

??

Your post makes me think you would choose "extrinsic". The problem with that choice is that it legislates taste.

And if you choose "intrinsic" you legislate authoral intent.

In either case, you're forfeiting freedom of conscience.