[mheisig]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I've been reading the "bros before hoes" manlaw thread and its various caveats, addendums, and escape clauses.

Pardon me while I puke.

The law is the law. It says what it says. The beauty of it is that it IS open to interpretation. Is my wife a hoe? nope. Does she trump bros in all places and all times 'cause she's not a hoe? nope. If I'm single, am I pulling a bros before hoes if a hot chick makes an incredible offer in the middle of a bro planned event? maybe, maybe not. We'll all find out later when I report back to the bros. If I have to buy them all beers for a week and put up with shit for a month, then yes. If they are buying me beers and giving me serious man-worship for my score, then no. If (as BSB has said) you are cutting yourself off from your bros for a brand new hoe - most probly you are in violation. BUT, if its the once in a lifetime "Damn, this is right" woman, than no - and when you resurface in a few weeks with her, your bros will both celebrate your happiness while they rib you to pieces about how you now a member of the "captured class".

Bros before hoes - means be true to your buds, but it also means that your buds will be true to you. No amount of addendums, escape clauses or other scrivener bullsh** can more fully describe that duty or that bond.

Unfortunately you leave way too much wiggle room. The reason we get into these problems and people like BSB whining about their feelings being hurt and how they aren't emotionally connected with their bros is because no one has taken the time to define precisely what this all means.

Leaving it at "bros before hoes" is just way to wide open.