Well, he's launched a defense of that column that's, uh, interesting, to say the least. Highlights are mine:
Some of the most vituperative emails I have ever got came in after I made an offhand remark, in one of my monthly NRO diaries, to the effect that very few of us are physically appealing after our salad days, which in the case of women I pegged at ages 15-20. While the storm was raging, biologist Razib Khan over at Gene Expression (forget philosophers, theologians, and even novelists: the only people with interesting things to say about human nature nowadays are the scientists) decided to look up some actual numbers. Reasoning that a rapist is inspired to his passion mainly by the physical attractiveness of his victim, Razib went for rape statistics.
He found a 1992 report (Rape in America: A Report to the Nation) from the National Victim Center showing the age distribution of female rape victims. Sixty percent of the women who reported having been raped were aged 17 or less, divided about equally between women aged 11 to 17 (32 percent) and those under eleven (29 percent). Only six percent were older than 29. When a woman gets past her mid twenties, in fact, her probability of being raped drops off like a continental shelf. If you histogram the figures, you get a peak around ages 12-14.
What's the creepiest thing about this?
-the fact that Derbyshire quotes a biologist to shore up a bizarro sociological/criminological theory
- the fact that this biologist seems to think that rape is motivated by the physical attractiveness of the victim
- the fact that Derbyshire is defending his own sexual tastes by noting that they coincide with those of rapists and pederasts
- the fact that these statistics could just as easily be used to defend the viewpoint that the most attractive females of all are those under the age of 12
- some other completely fucking creepy thing
YOU BE THE JUDGE!