But there's also the fact that parents have an interest in safeguarding their genetic legacy, and sexual abuse threatens that because sex with children--especially girls--can damage their insides. With boys it's probably more a fear of screwing them up sexually so that they are less likely to have children (the homosexuality as infection theory)--I'm not saying it's right, just that it exists.

Are you implying this is instinctual? It isn't. It is a social taboo that plays on the parent's instinct to protect. It's "society says/I was raised to beleive sex is bad, society says/I was raised to believe sex is especially bad for kids, so we don't want sex near them."

Also, why do anti-contact people always assume sexual intercourse that is wild and unrestrained? I'm curious? Why when someone mentions parents fears of paedosexuals, you go right to "intercourse that hurts the girl's insides"? This is by far the least common type of sexual contact that happens to young girls. Not to mention light penetration is not harmful and is pleasurable. Girls do it to themselves all the time.