He knows there is no evidence to suggest that a mutually consensual relationship between an older and younger person is "likely" to be harmful to youths. He knows full well that their current forced entrapment in the insular nuclear family unit is the most likely place for kids to receive abuse of all kinds. He is finally well aware that prohibition of any group of people rather than empowerment has always left them at the mercy of the worst of those in positions of authority. I have no doubt he is at least as well-read as the rest of us, as he is no simpleton and he has earned a Ph.D.

His concern is not the well-being of kids overall. His concern is to (using his own word in this thread) to prohibit sexual contact between kids and adults and to preserve the authoritarian hegemony that he is accustomed to. I am not saying he actually wants kids to be abused in any way within the authoritarian and often secretive nuclear family unit, nor by the many other forms of very demonstrable non-sexual types of harm that are inflicted upon kids by our adult-dominated society's way of doing things each and every day. What I am saying is that he is willing to tolerate all of that as long as the authorities he supports are willing to tolerate it. It's not about preventing demonstrable harm, it's about preventing what is not accepted by the mainstream. But you can't just come out and frame it honestly like that.

So, he externalizes the threat on a convenient, emotionally appealing scapegoat to divert fault from the authority structures he and his fellow neoliberals support. Note how he dismisses any suggestions for actual fundamental change as "wacky", "far-fetched", and "pie in the sky", etc. It's because he doesn't want these changes. It's that simple, and it's that obvious after years of engagement with him and his ilk.

Pro-choicers and youth liberationists are a major thorn in his side. As are socialists, Libertarians, or anyone else advocating for actual change. Most of us may not be united on economic issues, but we are usually well united on issues of civil liberties. Socialists and Libertarians tend to be mostly in accord on that, whereas the matter of civil liberties are often "controversial" to mainstream centrist liberals of today. That's why you also see many of them arguing to prohibit some sexual choices of adults (particularly women who may choose sex work as a vocation) and other "vice" issues that are not acceptable to mainstream moralistic values. To them, too much sexual freedom is too much freedom in general. The more likely you are to make unpopular decisions, the less rights they want you to have to make such choices legally. And they always claim to be doing it "for your own good." That's the feel-good rationalization for moral crusaders trying to disguise themselves in a progressive skin.