The Desire or Lack Thereof of Being Innocent

What does it mean to be "innocent?" I could be literal and say that Merriam Webster defines "innocent" as being "free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil." But that not what I mean. I guess the proper question is whether innocence a desired trait and at what cost would people pay to remain "innocent." There are two stories that are consistently being discussed that are discussing innocence and they are coming from two very different angles.

The first is the famed Miley Cyrus pictures that were taken by Annie Leibovitz for Vanity Fair. Without going into to much detail, because I am sure everyone know what I am talking about, the issue was whether those pictures should have been taken of Miley Cyrus in the first place. I understand that she is only 15 and they were being published for the whole world to see. I also understand there is an ongoing debate between whether the pictures were "tasteful" or "artistic." But that is not what caught my attention. I was reading a few articles online and some of the commentators on the articles pointed out, why would Miley Cyrus take these pictures. I think that should be a key question that very few people are addressing. I think it goes without saying, that a year ago, everyone would agree that Miley Cyrus was "sweet and innocent." Now there are pictures that are turning up (both amateur and professional) and instead of asking why, they are scrutinizing the pictures and the photographer. One of the current comments pointed out that this could be a public relations ploy for Miley to lose her "innocent" title. The truth is, Miley Cyrus will not be able to play Hannah Montana forever. There has to be a point in her life where either she or Disney says that enough is enough. However, what happens then? I know I am going really far back, but look at Shirley Temple. Shirley Temple was a huge childhood star that never really lost her "innocent" title, so as she grew up, there were not any roles for her. These pictures could be the start of a turning point in Miley's career where she is trying to add a little bit of an edge to her career. I do realize that Miley issued a statement saying that she is embarrassed, but that was at the behest of Disney, her current main sponsor. This could be reading too much into it, but her most recent concert tour was titled the "Best of Both Worlds." Miley is starting to break out and so these pictures could just be another way of her trying to transition from a sweet and innocent child into a teenager. This could mean that her past affiliations and sponsorships might end, but then a completely new set of affiliations and sponsorships may be waiting for her. The question is, if this is true, just how far would Miley go to lose that "innocent" label?

On the other side of Miley is Roger Clemens. Assume for the brief moment that as you read this post, that you believe that Roger Clemens is indeed innocent of taking performance enhancing drugs or steroids. (I realize this is a stretch because most people that I have spoken with think that he is indeed guilty.) So let's see what this "innocent" man has endured, so far. He testified before Congress saying that he did not take performance-enhancing drugs and he was heavily doubted. So much so, that skeptics said that if you are so innocent, what are you going to do about your accuser. Clemens was forced into a corner where for public perception reasons, he had to sue his accuser Brian McNamee for defamation. Regardless of the outcome of the defamation suit, a new issue has arisen due to the suit: namely the "relationship" of Roger Clemens and Mindy McCready. While it is unclear what their relationship actually consisted of, it is clear that the then 28-year-old Clemens befriended the then 15-year-old Mindy McCready and a friendship had developed. The report of this relationship has now further tarnished the public's perception of Clemens. In fact, many newspapers are reporting that this "relationship" is more damaging to his reputation then any possibility that he did use performance-enhancing drugs. So in the end, the question that some people, at the very least Clemens, has to ask, is was it worth it? Even if the defamation suit is successful and a court finds that McNamee defamed Clemens' reputation, who would really be a winner? This is looking like a lose-lose situation all the way around. The only question is, how much more can Clemens lose?

I wanted to share my thoughts on this, because I find it so interesting to see two totally different people trying to get to the other side of the "innocence" line.