This article only catches its stride halfway through. At first, I nearly pulled a muscle rolling my eyes at the “the standard deviation of total returns” argument. Of course the standard deviation of total returns will be higher for stocks than bonds, because the potential gains are so much larger! A (penny + a lottery ticket) has higher standard deviation in total returns than just a penny, but that doesn’t make its risk meaningfully higher. Risk aversion only really kicks in on the downside, so standard deviation of total returns is a useless measure.
Luckily, I kept reading, because the option pricing argument seems extremely solid to me. The common sense notion that your expected downside gets smaller over time is actually wrong according to options pricing - actually, longer-term put options are more expensive. I don’t see a way around that.