You don't freaking imply a child abuse for NOTHING.
My point was rather that Taiyaki may not even have meant to imply abuse. I didn't see it as the most obvious interpretation (though I can see how it is a possible interpretation), and at least a couple of others have said they didn't either.
It is important to remember that Taiyaki is writing in Japan for a Japanese audience. As I have mentioned previously, implication is very culture/context dependent.
In the West in recent years child sexual abuse (CSA) has been almost constantly in the media in a long series of headline grabbing scandals, enquiries, highly publicised "pedo busts", and political rallying cries to "think of the children". In psychology there is something called the availability heuristic - when we are trying to make sense of something our minds jump first to scenarios/framing that comes most easily. In the west at the moment CSA is the "go to" idea for childhood emotional trauma.
I can't claim to be familiar with the current Japanese culture in any comprehensive way, but I've been watching NHK news bulletins regularly for a few years now, and I get the impression that it is much less in the public consciousness there. The most recent big child abuse scandal I can remember was about physical abuse, not sexual. It might not even have occurred to Taiyaki that people would take it that way (or at least that they would be so sure about it). Even thought the underlying human experience is the same, their cultural attitude to sex, sexual assault and emotional trauma differ from Western culture in complex ways. Oddly enough despite Japan's extremely low murder rate, their national news has more coverage of murders than my country does.
I'm not against stories exploring CSA, I think it is a serious issue that can and should be explored in art. My mother was sexually abused as a child, it is an issue I am very much aware of, I'm just not (yet?) sure it is what is being depicted here.