Warpath's Official Man Law Thread

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I agree too much wiggle room....bros can't be gettin' hurt over these things.

See the thread on why I love the Parking Lot Forum. I think there's a lot of emotional healing going on over there if you've been hurt.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by mheisig

See the thread on why I love the Parking Lot Forum. I think there's a lot of emotional healing going on over there if you've been hurt.

Hahaha....you got me! As a matter of fact, I'm headed back over to the I love the Parking Forum....you guys are mean!

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by mheisig

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

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.

[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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

Well said. See Anthony Michael Hall in 16 Candles. Was he or was he not the envy of all the geeks when he emerged from the bathroom stall with Molly Ringwald's panties?

The Bros Before Hoes man-law shall give special consideration to the league of the bro and the league of the ho. If the league of the ho is greater than the league of the bro, then the bros shall insist that their bro pursue the ho. If the league of the ho is less than or equal to the league of the bro, the Bros Before Hoes man-law shall be invoked.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

That's a very interesting way to look at it. If your bros are bros at all, they won't give you shit. It's all about the ying and yang, the alpha and the omega. The circle of life.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I say Man Law should be simply as JoeRedskin stated: Be true to your buds and they will be true to you.

Do good things and good things happen.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

The official statement of "Bros before Hoes" is too wide-open and not easily interpreted.

[BrudLee]

And by the way-

If I'm a single guy, and a smoking hot girl tries to lure me away from "beer pong" with the bro's - and I say "no way" - I am doing the bro's an amazing disservice.

Banging remarkable strange is the civic duty of every single guy. The story you get to tell afterwards makes up for missing poker night 99 times out of a hundred.

And that, my friends, is Man Law.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by BrudLee

And by the way-

If I'm a single guy, and a smoking hot girl tries to lure me away from "beer pong" with the bro's - and I say "no way" - I am doing the bro's an amazing disservice.

Banging remarkable strange is the civic duty of every single guy. The story you get to tell afterwards makes up for missing poker night 99 times out of a hundred.

And that, my friends, is Man Law.

True.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

True enough. Because your friends will live vicariously through you.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

I wish I hadn't skipped work today, just because I missed some very good points that I don't feel like commenting on now.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

I wish I hadn't skipped work today, just because I missed some very good points that I don't feel like commenting on now.

Yeah, AMD, you really have to be in the moment on these things. I feel your pain man!

[TheMalcolmConnection]

So why not just coin this the "Earl Rule" where you do good things and good things happen?!

[JoeRedskin]

Nowhere in my post did I mention the word "relationships". I did mention trust - as in breaking their trust and violating the man code.

But for what its worth, I am with AMD.