It's an orthodoxy of some sort.

The historical analysis of childhood asexuality and innocence as an ultimately social-economic problem, is, I agree, unavoidable. You would be right to point out that the blog post did not attempt to address those issues. At the very least, this is an awkward omission, given the length of the blog post and the ground it attempts to cover. You would also be right to point out that basic human biology at least potentiates the c19-21 shift in concern re. child safety. As previous threats to the lives and welfare of children fade away, we need new threats to preoccupy these natural protective drives with - to fill the hole that was left by the savage life. Teaching and socialization of the innocent child archetype (nowadays, developmentally naive) and that of the depraved pedophile (nowadays mentally disordered) are nevertheless very important. They resemble in some ways, a kind of orthodoxy. As a result, your average normie then has the easy "palmcard response" to the supposed threat, rather than having to react instinctively to these "intractable social realities". Like how AI doesn't need an actual understanding of history to tell you what makes sense; it just has to read Snopes and Wikipedia. Orthodoxy, and teaching of these roles, I think plays an important part in the socialization of our disgust response towards "sexualization" of children and towards youth pornography - where arousal intersects with horror. The same goes for our rational-liberal response to the "pedophilic transaction" as an "awful idea" akin to scientific racism or "climate denialism". It's an across-the-board lock-down of everything that guides our moral response. This perfect - almost evolved, occupation of both our rational and visceral responses, would - I think be impossible if we were operating simply from our response to modern social-economic realities, without the guiding hand of some kind of taught "orthodoxy". It's almost necessary that the war on pedophiles has become an orthodoxy.