there is no reliable scientific evidence that adult-child sexual interactions per se are necessarily, or even generally harmful.

And:

Indeed, virtually all of the harm associated with adult-child sexual interactions is ultimately attributable to the stigma rather than these actions themselves, which are not intrinsically damaging.

That is a given, now. Especially with people who have intimate knowledge of such. Like me.

I'm doubtful that the article's point of the historicity of the proscription of pedophilia is accurate. I do think there is an element of promoting marriage in an attempt to curb sexual activity between unmarried adults and minors. Perhaps some justification of the stigma. But, the article fails to consider the "buggery" aspect, the adult-(male child) sexual interactions. These interactions were, likewise, proscribed. Female- and male-child sexual interactions with adults were considered illegal. The article does not address this parallel or even congruent stigma.

Furthermore, while the history of origins may or may not be valid, it does nothing to examine current legal nor personal opinions.

Don't get me wrong; it's a good article. But it definitely begs the question. (Begging the question, that is, should be taken as modern vernacular in its usage as opposed to classical rhetoric and logic meaning of an informal fallacy).