[mheisig]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

My friends, you miss my point. Yes - "Bros before Hoes" is wide open and should remain so. It is the intent of the statement, not the wording of the statement that is important. AND THAT is what buds will discuss ad nauseum after any invocation of the BBH man-law. The law is a learning experience, getting back to your buds and discussing the event and finding out whether or not you violated their trust is part of the point. For any set of buds, the BBH law will vary slightly depending on the guys involved. For example:

Several socially challenged young men (geeks) have a "bro" planned event (for extreme sake, let's say a trek convention) and one them is approached by a relatively attractive woman - it would appear to me that this particular group would not only allow but demand the young man to pursue said tang.
However, with the same woman but different guys (jocks going to a football game), different result.

Bros Before Hoes is about finding out what is expected of you and what you can expect from your buds. It is a proper manlaw but in determining it's meaning, violation and penalty, you gotta work at knowing what your buds can and should expect from you and vice versa.

It's not quite Question 3. But it's close.

I'm not sure, but my gut is telling me that discussing relational trust issues with "bros" is a violation of a Man Law somewhere.

I think I'm with AMD on this one:

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

MAN LAW: No complaining if a buddy breaks "Bros Before Hoes," BUT, no complaining when you get punched in the face or left at a bar for breaking the code.

Basically this gets back to the other Man Law of no bitchin' amongst bros.