A female artist performing on stage was stopped half way by authorities at Babcock University Fresher's Fair because of the clothes she wore.

A video which is currently trending online shows the artist singing on stage while her audience gave her their attention and even sang along.

Shortly, a woman approaches her and tells the DJ to stop the music.

The woman and other school staff surrounded her and then take her offstage, consequently causing commotion.

Apparently, students did not approve of the disruption and they are heard screaming "go away" at the staff.

A student could be heard saying "It doesn't make sense,"

According to report, the school did not approve of the performer's outfit.

She wore a sleeveless top and baggy trousers for the performance.

Source: https://hgsmediaplus.com/2022/11/28/babcock-authorities-stop-an-artist-performing-on-stage-over-her-outfit-video/

Lalasticlala

Okay oh.

Whether Babcock is right or wrong depends on two things.

1.
What kind of songs is the artist known for? If the artist is known for erotic lyrics, Babcock is nothing but a pretender. Let me give an example. There was a time Burna boy was to perform in my school but my school, being a school with Christian foundation, said no because of Burna's kind of songs then and because of the Burna's dress code on atages.

2.
Did the school, when booking the artist for the show, tell the artist to follow the school's dress code? If no, the school should pay the artist the amount charged for the show. But if the school informed the artist about dress code and the artist disobeyed, the school should not pay the artist.

immortalcrown:
Okay oh.

Whether Babcock is right or wrong depends on two things.

1.
What kind of songs is the artist known for? If the artist is known for erotic lyrics, Babcock is nothing but a pretender. Let me give an example. There was a time Burna boy was to perform in my school but my school, being a school with Christian foundation, said no because of Burna's kind of songs then and because of the Burna's dress code on atages.

2.
Did the school, when booking the artist for the show, tell the artist to follow the school's dress code? If no, the school should pay the artist the amount charged for the show. But if the school informed the artist about dress code and the artist disobeyed, the school should not pay the artist.

You are on point like nipples.

In addition the artist is also aware she was coming to perform at a Christian institution and should at least have dressed more appropriately.

But a huge percentage of the blame lies in the 2 points you noted.

brain54:

You are on point like nipples.

In addition the artist is also aware she was coming to perform at a Christian institution and should at least have dressed more appropriately.

But a huge percentage of the blame lies in the 2 points you noted.

The artist knowing the school's religious status is not a justification of anything here. Artists use their lifestyles including fashion to sell themselves. The artist believes her lifestyle attracted the contract, and therefore used her usual outfit for the show. Blame the School that orders for Cassava while claiming to be allergic to starch.

immortalcrown:
The artist knowing the school's religious status is not a justification of anything here. Artists use their lifestyles including fashion to sell themselves. The artist believes his or her lifestyle attracted the contract. Blame the School that orders for Cassava while claiming to be allergic to starch.

Like I said you are on point and I ain’t arguing with you. But sometimes an artist can use a bit of discretion to dress for the occasion. Toning it down a bit especially putting into consideration the audience ( students) she was performing for won’t hurt anybody.

But again I will like to see the dress the artist wore because sometimes these institutions can be over zealous in their ideas of what decent dressing means.

brain54:

Like I said you are on point and I ain’t arguing with you. But sometimes an artist can use a bit of discretion to dress for the occasion. Toning it down a bit especially putting into consideration the audience ( students) she was performing for won’t hurt anybody.

But again I will like to see the dress the artist wore because sometimes these institutions might be over zealous in their ideas of what decent dressing means.

If you invite an artist that make ungodly songs, it is illogical to complain about the artist's worldly dressing. Complaining about the artist's dress code is like expecting a monkey to lose its ability of climbing when the monkey is in the house of a crippled person.

immortalcrown:
If you invite an artist that make ungodly songs, it is illogical to complain about the artist's worldly dressing.

Again what’s your definition of worldly songs?

An artist might have songs that don’t have indecent lyrics. Even though secular artist.

Korede Bello for instance is a secular artist. But there is nothing wrong with the lyrics of his song ‘Godwin’ is there?
Can’t that sound be played in a Christian environment?
My point is not every secular song is ungodly to therefore equal indecent dressing.

brain54:

Again what’s your definition of worldly songs?

An artist might have songs that don’t have indecent lyrics. Even though secular artist.

Korede Bello for instance is a secular artist. But there is nothing wrong with the lyrics of his song ‘Godwin’ is there?
Can’t that sound be played in a Christian environment?
My point is not every secular song is ungodly to therefore equal indecent dressing.

First, I said, "erotic", then I later said, "ungodly" for a reason. I used "worldly" somewhere and used "ungodly" elsewhere. Read my comments carefully to observe it.

Second, you have judged yourself by mentioning Korede Bello here. Korede Bellow is not known for obscene outfits. He is not shirtless in most or all of his pictures on the internet. Will you say this same thing about Flavour, Naira Marley, Blackbonz, and every other artist that use erotic words in their songs? MI is a core rapper but he doesn't sound erotic and his dress code is decent.

These useless religious universities are the most corrupt.

They are sexually destroyed, they're drug consumers, they're cultist dens.

Screw them.

immortalcrown:
You have judged yourself by mentioning Korede Bello here. Korede Bellow is not known for obscene outfits. I is not shirtless in most or all of his pictures on the internet. Will you say this same thing about Flavour, Naira Marley, Blackbonz, and every other artist that use erotic words in their songs? MI is a core rapper but he doesn't sound erotic and his dress code is decent.

Singing secular or “ worldly “ songs doesn’t necessarily equal indecent dressing hence the example I choose in korede.

It doesn’t correlate that a secular artist must dress indecently as you suggested in the other post.

Some songs might be secular and still have clean lyrics. Also an artist might have songs that have dirty lyrics and also some with clean lyrics. Discretion in this situation will mean that he/she should sing the songs with clean lyrics in the appropriate setting. This to an extent include dressing.

Some artists include paid staffs in their team to help them manage these things.

brain54:

Singing secular or “ worldly “ songs doesn’t necessarily equal indecent dressing hence the example I choose in korede.

It doesn’t correlate that a secular artist must dress indecently as you suggested in the other post.

Some songs might be secular and still have clean lyrics. Also an artist might have songs that have dirty lyrics and also some with clean lyrics. Discretion in this situation will mean that he/she should sing the songs with clean lyrics in the appropriate setting. This to an extent include dressing.

Some artists include paid staffs in their team to help them manage these things.

You are beating around the bush. My point is clear. I will not be surprised if a maker of ungodly songs wear indecent clothes in public. But I will be surprised if a gospel artist wears an indecent cloth in public. If the artist invited to Babcock is known for ungodly lyrics, Babcock, without warning the artist before hand, should not claim to be surprised that the artist wore an indecent cloth to the show.

At Babcock they have rules and regulations for everything.


You must abide by their rules or you leave.

immortalcrown:
You are beating around the bush. My point is clear. I will not be surprised if a maker of ungodly songs wear indecent clothes in public. But I will be surprised if a gospel artist wears an indecent cloth in public. If the artist invited to Babcock is known for ungodly lyrics, Babcock, without warning the artist before hand, should not claim to have expected the artist to wear a decent cloth to the show.

Bro you still getting my point slightly mixed…


Maybe you would understand me better if we both agree on a definition of some key words in our discussion like UNGODLY SONGS, WORDLY SONGS, INDECENT DRESSING.

These words are subjective to interpretation that’s why I stated earlier I will like to see the way the artist was dressed.

I try to be as objective as possible in my assessment of issues. In some of these Christian institutions wearing jeans is termed as in appropriate. Wearing a skirt above the knee is indecent etc. that’s why I said I will like to see the way she was dressed and if possible the particular artist.

In my book jeans or skirt slightly above knee level is not indecent.

And as I stated earlier singing secular songs definitely does not correlate to indecent dressing.

Peace to you.

brain54:

Bro you still getting my point slightly mixed…


Maybe you would understand me better if we both agree on a definition of some key words in our discussion like UNGODLY SONGS, WORDLY SONGS, INDECENT DRESSING.

These words are subjective to interpretation that’s why I stated earlier I will like to see the way the artist was dressed.

I try to be as objective as possible in my assessment of issues. In some of these Christian institutions wearing jeans is termed as in appropriate. Wearing a skirt above the knee is indecent etc. that’s why I said I will like to see the way she was dressed and if possible the particular artist.

In my book jeans or skirt slightly above knee level is not indecent.

And as I stated earlier singing secular songs definitely does not correlate to indecent dressing.

Peace to you.

Nawa for you and your unnecessary argument. Since the word ungodly is too big for you to understand, let me define it. Ungodly song is any song that preaches and glorifies what those who believe in God should not do. Ungodly songs talk about sexual organs and sexual activities, hips, breasts, penis and so on. Those who believe in God are not supposed to be entertaining those things in songs. In my main comment, I said, "erotic" lyrics. In my response that made you start this your unnecessary definitions, I said, "ungodly lyrics ". Even when you mentioned Korede Bello, I said his songs are not ungodly. To make myself clear, I even mentioned some of the artists who sing erotic songs. I mentioned Naira Marley and Flavour who sing about sex. So, what exactly is your noise about? I call this your response noise because my points are clear and I did not use any big word you don't understand.

My point about Babcock and the artist is very clear. If the artist makes ungodly songs, why would Babcock invite the artist in the first place?

immortalcrown:
Nawa for you and your unnecessary argument. Since the word ungodly is too big for you to understand, let me define it. Ungodly song is any song that preaches and glorifies what those who believe in God should not do. Ungodly songs talk about sexual organs and sexual activities, hips, breasts, penis and so on. In my main comment, I said, "erotic" lyrics. In my response that made you start this your unnecessary definitions, I said, "ungodly lyrics ". Even when you mentioned Korede Bello, I said his songs are not ungodly. To make myself clear, I even mentioned some of the artists who sing erotic songs. I mentioned Naira Marley and Flavour who sing about sex. So, what exactly is your noise about? I call this your response noise because my points are clear and I did not use any big word you don't understand.

My point about Babcock and the artist is very clear. If the artist makes ungodly songs, why would Babcock invite the artist in the first place?

Now you are throwing in the word erotic. Where in all of your previous posts did you use the word erotic because I did not see it anywhere. I have tried to make you understand that the artist was bounced because of the way she was dressed and not because of the lyrics of her song. But you choose not to be objective because you have made up your mind already.


In your opinion and thinking now you feel the school invited an artist that sings erotic music ( like Naira Marley for instance)?

Oga calm down and read what I have been saying and you will understand the point I have been trying to make. Don’t make me feel like I have been wasting my time trying to communicate with you.

brain54:

Now you are throwing in the word erotic. Where in all of your previous posts did you use the word erotic because I did not see it anywhere. I have tried to make you understand that the artist was bounced because of the way she was dressed and not because of the lyrics of her song. But you choose not to be objective because you have made up your mind already.


In your opinion and thinking now you feel the school invited an artist that sings erotic music ( like Naira Marley for instance)?

Oga calm down and read what I have been saying and you will understand the point I have been trying to make. Don’t make me feel like I have been wasting my time trying to communicate with you.

Read my first comment which you yourself quoted. You are beginning to tell lies here. Read it. You will see erotic there. You yourself quoted it so you can't claim I edited it. And concerning where you claim I think the school invited a maker of erotic lyrics, you are also a false accuser here because I didn't claim or assume the school did so. I simply said, If the school invited.., which means I am not making any claim there. The if in the statement makes it clear. I said that the school being right or wrong depends on the kind of songs the the artist is known for. I also said that making an agreement on dress code depends on the kind of songs the artist makes. If the artist is a gospel artist, it is understandable why the school might not consider it necessary to tell the artist about dress code before the show. But if the artist makes erotic songs, why should the school invite the artist in the first place? And after inviting the artist, did the school caution the artist about dress code? If yes, the artist should forfeit the money for the show. But if the school didn't dictate dress code for the artist, the school should pay the agreed money. Why is this difficult for you to understand.

Give what belongs to Caesar to Caesar.

immortalcrown:
Read my first comment which you yourself quoted. Read it.

Okay seen…


But still doesn’t change the issue of the artist being stopped because of the way she was dressed and not the lyrics.
Still don’t correlate that being a secular artist equals indecent dressing.
Be open enough to accept that the school would not have invited an artist with erotic music being a Christian institution. Rather an artist with more decent lyrics. Not ungodly lyrics. The issue here is probably an over sight in the choice of dressing of this person. I stated earlier these some of them have higher than normal code of dressing.


Let’s try to be balanced and objective pls.

immortalcrown:
Read my first comment which you yourself quoted. You are beginning to tell lies here. Read it. You will see erotic there. You yourself quoted it so you can't claim I edited it. And concerning where you claim I think the school invited a maker of erotic lyrics, you are also a false accuser here because I didn't claim or assume the school did so. I simply said, If the school invited.., which means I am not making any claim there. The if in the statement makes it clear. I said that the school being right or wrong depends on the kind of songs the the artist is known for. I also said that making an agreement on dress code depends on the kind of songs the artist makes. If the artist is a gospel artist, it is understandable why the school might not consider it necessary to tell the artist about dress code before the show. But if the artist makes erotic songs, why should the school invite the artist in the first place? And after inviting the artist, did the school caution the artist about dress code? If yes, the artist should forfeit the money for the show. But if the school didn't dictate dress code for the artist, the school should pay the agreed money. Why is this difficult for you to understand.

Now you will go ahead to call me names…

I don’t make issues like these personal. I only try to be objective. The if in your statement is off because from the story you should know the artist is not a gospel musician and not an erotic musician either. But someone with moderate lyrics and songs. Someone in between. Like simi for instance. The problem was the way the person choose to dress on the day of the event. Obviously the artist isn’t known as an indecent dresser hence no need for the caution in the first place. I still stand on my point the the artist might not have necessarily dressed indecently but might not have met the standard of the school.

If you still don’t get it at this point then forget about it because I sense your beginning to take this personal hence the insults.

immortalcrown:
The artist knowing the school's religious status is not a justification of anything here. Artists use their lifestyles including fashion to sell themselves. The artist believes his or her lifestyle attracted the contract. Blame the School that orders for Cassava while claiming to be allergic to starch.

Common sense should tell the artist that when you are performing at a religious school, you cover up, will she die if she cover up? Besides this is Babcock, they usually tell them before coming that they should not expose themselves when coming, sleeveless top is not allowed.

brain54:

Now you will go ahead to call me names…

I don’t make issues like these personal. I only try to be objective. The if in your statement is off because from the story you should know the artist is not a gospel musician and not an erotic musician either. But someone with moderate lyrics and songs. Someone in between. Like simi for instance. The problem was the way the person choose to dress on the day of the event. Obviously the artist isn’t known as an indecent dresser hence no need for the caution in the first place. I still stand on my point the the artist might not have necessarily dressed indecently but might not have met the standard of the school.

If you still don’t get it at this point then forget about it because I sense your beginning to take this personal hence the insults.

To prove to you that this argument started because you didn't read my main comment well, let us do something now.

Mention the artist, let us check the two things I said in the first point in my main comment. Those two things are the artist's lyrics and the artist's dress code for stage performances. If you think you have any point against my main comment, mention the artist and let us do these two things.

If you don't mention the artist, your argument is illogical and unnecessary.

If you mention the artist and his songs and stage dress code are indecent, your argument is still illogical.

But if the artist's lyrics and stage dress code are decent, I will accept your logic. I will also apologize for taking you this far in this argument.

immortalcrown:
To prove to you that this argument started because you didn't read my main comment well, let us do something now.

Mention the artist, let us check the two things I said in the first point in my main comment. Those two things are the artist's lyrics and the artist's dress code for stage performances. If you think you have any point against my main comment, mention the artist and let us do these two things.

If you don't mention the artist, your argument is illogical and unnecessary.

If you mention the artist and his songs and stage dress code are indecent, your argument is still illogical.

But if the artist's lyrics and stage dress code are decent, I will accept your logic. I will also apologize for taking you this far in this argument.

So now you know all the details to the story so your argument is logical, right and absolutely correct.
Nice one!

Jovialjune1:



Common sense should tell the artist that when you are performing at a religious school, you cover up, will she die if she cover up? Besides this is Babcock, they usually tell them before coming that they should not expose themselves when coming, sleeveless top is not allowed.

You yourself should apply the same common sense here. An artist wearing his usual stage outfit to his usual show and a Church avoiding an artist known for an indecent dress code, which one is more expected to be handled by common sense?

brain54:

So now you know all the details to the story so your argument is logical, right and absolutely correct.
Nice one!

You further sound illogical here. I never said I know the details. I repeatedly used if to show I don't know whether the situation is A or B. It seems you are the type who knows how to speak grammar without knowing the meaning of simple English words. I repeatedly used if in my comments. Does it mean you don't know the function of if in a statement? I just told you here to mention the artist. If the artist wore decent dress to his former shows and his lyrics are not ungodly, then I will accept your point. But if the artist make ungodly songs and wore indecent dress to his previous shows and the Church invited him without discussing dress code with him, your point is illogical and unacceptable.

immortalcrown:
You further sound illogical here. I never said I know the details. I repeatedly used if to show I don't know whether the situation is A or B. It seems you are the type who knows how to speak grammar without knowing the meaning of simple English words. I repeatedly used if in my comments. Does it mean you don't know the function of if in a statement? I just told you here to mention the artist. If the artist wore decent dress to his former shows and his lyrics are not ungodly, then I will accept your point. But if the artist make ungodly songs and wore indecent dress to his previous shows and the Church invited him without discussing dress code with him, your point is illogical and unacceptable.

You understand grammar very well.
You understand the use of if but not the use of might in my statement.
Keep being the only one that is logical. You no know say na express you Dey to phychiatric you Dey so.
See the person you quoted above me… read your comment and see if it makes any sense.
Mr logical…!

immortalcrown:
You yourself should apply the same common sense here. An artist wearing his usual stage outfit to his usual show and a Church avoiding an artist known for an indecent dress code, which one is more expected to be handled by common sense?

This one…

immortalcrown:
You yourself should apply the same common sense here. An artist wearing his usual stage outfit to his usual show and a Church avoiding an artist known for an indecent dress code, which one is more expected to be handled by common sense?

Common sense is truly not common,

1) when in a religious gathering, you don't do the usual and wear the usual, you conform to their rules, Babcock told the artist what to wear, she didn't abide by the rule

2) Babcock invited her there, when she knows she cannot adhere to their dress code, why did she accept the invitation? That's why they stopped the show, they are justified.

Jovialjune1:



Common sense is truly not common,

1) when in a religious gathering, you don't do the usual and wear the usual, you conform to their rules, Babcock told the artist what to wear, she didn't abide by the rule

2) Babcock invited her there, when she knows she cannot adhere to their dress code, why did she accept the invitation? That's why they stopped the show, they are justified.

One, a religious gathering that invites a stripper to a show in a Church should either caution the stripper about dress code or accept whatever the stripper wears to the show. A Church inviting an artist to a show is different the same Church inviting an artist to attend a Church service. This is why I asked the kind of song the artist does. If the artist sings ungodly songs and the Church invites the artist for a show without cautioning the artist about dress code, I blame the Church. And if this is the case, you are the one who lacks common sense in this discussion.

Two, I asked and I ask again, what kind of songs does the artist sing and how does the artist dress for shows? If the artist dresses and sings like Flavour on stage and the Church invited him without discussing dress code with him, I don't blame the artist because what we are discussing here is not righteousness and sin. What we are discussing here is which kind of artist should a Church call for a show and if a Church calls an indecent artist for a show, what should the Church discuss with the artist before the show?

brain54:

You understand grammar very well.
You understand the use of if but not the use of might in my statement.
Keep being the only one that is logical. You no know say na express you Dey to phychiatric you Dey so.
See the person you quoted above me… read your comment and see if it makes any sense.
Mr logical…!

Mrs. Logic, you remain illogical here because my comment is filled with if. It doesn't matter who quotes me and who doesn't quote me. I made it clear how the Church or the artist will be the guilty one. I didn't say the Church is already the guilty one. I didn't say the artist is already the guilty one. If A is what happened, the Church is the guilty one. If B is what happened, the artist is the guilty one.

You are the one who does not want to admit your mistake. At a point, you claimed I didn't write erotic in my main comment. I told you to check for the word in the comment, you quickly jumped to something else without admitting that the word is in the comment.

immortalcrown:
Mrs. Logic, you remain illogical here because my comment is filled with if. It doesn't matter who quotes me and who doesn't quote me. I made it clear how the Church or the artist will be the guilty one. I didn't say the Church is already the guilty one. I didn't say the artist is already the guilty one. If A is what happened, the Church is the guilty one. If B is what happened, the artist is the guilty one.

As you have made everything clear no other person can make any other point again or have a different opinion because you are mr logic.
You are full of your self.

You even going back to edit your comments. I just noticed. I never said I don’t understand what indecent, ungodly etc means I only said we both have to agree on a definition if we are to have a head way. But I see you are crazy editing your comments and twisting and manipulating words.
All these because you want to be right with your useless argument.
I wonder how I even responded to you this far.
How do your wife cope with you at home. I pity for her because I have an idea what she goes through.
No more response from me again mr logic. Your just a nut case waiting to happen.

brain54:

As you have made everything clear no other person can make any or point again or have a different opinion because you are mr logic.
You are full of your self.

Your point remains illogical because we are not discussing repentance here. If we are discussing repentance and the Church invited the artist to hear the gospel, then your point is logical.

Your point is illogical because we are yet to know the kind of songs the artist makes. If the artist makes gospel, your point is logical because it will be a disappointment for a gospel artist to wear an indecent dress to a show. But if the artist makes erotic songs or wears indecent dress to shows and the Church invited the artist without discussing dress code before the show, your point is illogical because it should not be a surprise that an indecent artist wears an indecent dress.