I just reread the scene in question. The scene is detailed in that parts of anatomy are mentioned (albeit in oddly euphemistic fashion, "boy parts" and "girl parts", with the closest they get to anything being described is that it well all the way in "to the hilt" and he could feel her warmth) and it's indicated that the sex act happened (or at least insertion took place), but it's described pretty clinically, in part because the narrator wakes up pretty much in the middle of it happening and thinks it's a bad idea. The sex between the children in adult bodies is only seem in the aftermath of them getting caught lying in the bed afterwards. The follow-up scene for the adults in children's bodies gets described similarly pretty clinically when it comes to anything involving anatomy, mainly noting as kind of an afterward that the hairlessness was weird, as was the resulting skin sounds, but the actual lovemaking is basically off-scene and referred to as that they did it.
So, I'm really not certain whether that defends the book or not. It's a book where adults in children's bodies have sex with each other and where children in adult bodies have sex, but it's all done pretty non-explicitly, and the central narrative is basically that the adults don't see what they're doing as wrong because they're basically only attracted to the other's younger body because they know what the mind is behind them, and the kids... well, basically they fool around due to curiosity and then largely drop it because they find out firsthand one of the consequences of sex, pregnancy, and they basically decide it isn't worth it. Sex with children is explicitly called out as wrong several times in the narrative, with the particular situation being the only reason the characters find it acceptable, and the action is not described in any way I'd see as titillating. I'm sure it is for some people, but then again, so are National Geographic issues about tribes with topless women, and clothing catalogues involving people of all ages in swimsuits.
I'm not going to fight the deletion of the entry if people do indeed find it offensive, but just stating the facts of it.
So, in short, I think the entry was rightfully flagged to be looked into, because it does include underage sex as a plot point, but I'd argue that it is not glorified, or explicit, and this work is actually exemplary in being one of the few examples of looking at the aftermath of a "Freaky Friday" Flip.
Showtime!
I'd say based on that description it feels like it's not pedo-pandering. It's kind of weird and uncomfortable, but I think we can keep it
Absolute destiny... apeachalypse?
Angry babby
Reminds me of that really weird scene in IT, and we still have that page open, so I guess it can stay if there's no explicit focus on kids' bodies and it's deconstructing how awkward the idea of sex is for the kids.
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
"Implied sex of preteens or younger" is listed on The Content Policy as a reason to remove.
I'm pretty lenient where a character's mental and physical ages differ, but we can't have it both ways. Either the kids in adult bodies are considered preteens and that merits removal or the adults in kid bodies are considered preteens and that merits removal.
It's listed as a definite reason for flagging, which it was. From there, material comes under review for whether it is explicit or glorifying pedophilia. 
So, we're only going "both ways" in that there's a more broad policy for flagging than there is for material actually being cut.
Bumping to get this out of the stack of locked threads.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Keep. It's not what we're looking for as pedopandering; it's an attempt to examine a "Freaky Friday" Flip.
I despise hypocrisy, unless of course it is my own.
Goku Black
This does just seem like that weird scene in IT and no one would really call for cutting that page. So keep.
Edited by miraculous on Sep 6th 2022 at 1:03:23 AM
"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."
Bumping to get it out of the stack of locked threads.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Unofficial co-Wiki Curator for Magnificent Bastard
Now a lurker. Thanks for everything. | he/him
(she/her)
I am good with keeping it.
Macron's notes
Looks like this is heading to a keep, but close. I'll do the record-keeping; closing in the meantime.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
The flag here for WeCantRewind was sent with the rationale
I have not read this thing, just going off the trope page and amazon reviews.