Yes, it's an odd selective belief.
It's common to expose babies to sounds in the womb to develop parent-child bonds, or to consider it beneficial to 'socialise' a child by sending him or her to nursery very young, or to think that surrounding a baby or toddler with music or foreign languages are going to lay down early associations and neuronal pathways and networks and the foundations of later learning and affiliations and enjoyment.
Then suddenly a baby surrounded by strippers and men in thongs gyrating, or men in leather fetish puppy outfits and bondage gear is 'not going to have any effect'. That the ignorance of childhood will have some magical protective effect, as if children are impervious to influence or manipulation or - well. Grooming.
It seems sometimes people credit babies and children with sentience or not according to what they want to get out of the interaction, rather than what they think is actually beneficial for the baby/child.
Children cannot consent to sexual interactions. They can't understand or appreciate sexual dynamics or jokes or displays or postures.
No child should be exposed to sexualised behaviour, and the fact that this book is so lauded, feted and celebrated should be very concerning.