Brown is going to be interviewed by Barbara Walters on "This Week" this morning.

Obama aged better? No way! Brown is way hotter.

Jon Hamm plays sexy Scott Brown on Saturday Night Live.

That was a very funny skit!!!

Scott Brown tells 60 Minutes that he was sexually abused and physically abused (by different people) as a youth.

That may explain a lot.

I wonder where he stands on access to mental health services? He supports a party that would eliminate them. I wonder how that happens?

Unfortunately one consequence of Brown's decision not to pursue a legal suit is that we may not learn the full extent of the potential criminal behavior of his abusers, or other's versions of what occurred.

"Other versions of what occurred?" You might want to rethink your phrasing of this. The man stated that he was abused by a camp counselor, when he was a child. Your statement reads as to imply that it was consensual.

Well being one who is always predisposed to believe the child making abuse allegations I lean to the side of believing him, even though he's now an adult and so much time has passed.

However there's a third possible scenario between abuse and consensual sex.....flat out lie. I'm not saying that's what he's doing, just acknowledging it as a possibility.

The logical side of me notes that he told no one (not unusual in and of itself), he is selling a book (oops) he's a Republican (double oops) running in what is considered a highly competitive race (triple oops.) His choice not to pursue a prosecution doesn't sway me one way or another. It seems logical after so many years to want to forgive and move on. Of course a prosecution would bring an investigation of the facts which someone making it up would want to avoid.

Ideally it would be nice for someone to come forward and corroborate his story. Until then I have to rely on my gut and that's telling me he's being truthful, but wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be a total fabrication.

But I think it's not unusual for a sexual molestation victim to want to "protect" the perpetrator in some way. Also, in some cases, the molestation involved other sorts of sexual activities that they'd rather not dredge up. I'm thinking in this case of the sexual abuse scandals involving hockey players--where the teen boys may have been involved in activities with their other teammates, with young women, and with the coach. Similarly, people don't like to talk about abusive hazing--which sometimes involves sexual activity.

The sad part is that by not coming forward until decades later, this abuser (or abusers) quite likely could have been doing this to others (and may still be doing it). As a responsible political leader, one would hope that Scott Brown will realize that it's great of him to publicly admit that he was vicitimized, and it may give others courage to come forward. But he also has a duty to protect others who suffered or are suffering.

From that news report linked above, it sounds like that Christian camp is willing to atone and would be willing to cooperate in finding out what past misdeeds happened.

I can assure you, BBC, that I find Scott Brown's version of the events more than passingly credible. But I also have some experience with what would now be called "sexual abuse", and know how there are always three sides to every story: mine, the other and the truth.

I do not always assume that my version is "the truth", and would not pursue any legal recompense since the "perpetrator" is no longer alive.

But it is not fair to Scott Brown nor his abusers to have only one side of the story.

He was probably as attractive as a child as he is as an adult, and his abuse which was not "consumated" as he says, may have taught him that his appearance was something that he could use in life.

He did so in posing for a centerfold - and to a lesser extent - in running for political office, which is often a beauty contest.

There is nothing wrong with using what you have to get ahead in life, and I am sure that he is not revengeful.

Thank you, Sportinlife for your response. Sometimes when I post here, I don't want people to think that I'm disparaging, dismissive, or disrespectful of their views. Writing an argument can miss the tone and inflection of the spoken argument.

In your response, do you want to suggest that Brown took from this experience the realization that his looks could be used to his advantage? That appears to me very grey territory. It sounds somewhat the same as saying the victim is to blame.

I wasn't trying to place blame, just be "fair and balanced", not only to Brown but to the silent accused, so far.

I think any fair lawyer, or fair-minded individual for that matter, would want the same thing. The silence of whoever abused him does not prove guilt or innocence.

But his revelation of the incident and refusal to press charges may benefit him in a way that is unfair to the voters who may vote for him sympathizing with his past abuse rather than considering whether his actual voting record conforms with their views.

If the details of the incident were known from other sources, there might not be that advantage.

I don't consider that to be blaming anyone for what happened, just as I do not blame any current USA citizen for racism practiced by this country in the past in a way that would give me advantage over anyone else.

But if I believe that I have suffered directly from racism by any individual or group of individuals I believe that I should have the same right to petition for redress of grievances through the civil court system as they have to defend themselves. What we have with Scott Brown is a relation of events that is one-sided regardless of veracity. And the lack of charges filed by him mean that we might not hear any other versions.

Well put.