The guideline “bros before hos” dictates that one should prioritize one’s friends over one’s romantic interests. It is considered by many to be one of the premier guidelines founded in the twentieth century. On this page, I will attempt to discuss various methods that have been proposed to justify this important notion, and then deal with specific questions regarding the theory.

Bros before Hos

Section 1: Arguments
1.1: The Argument From Security
1.2: The Player's Dilemma
1.3: The Argument From the Need For Moral Guidelines
Section 2: Questions
2.1: "Chicks Before Dicks"
2.2: Friendship with Romantic Interests
2.3: Spouses

Section 1: Arguments

1.1: The Argument From Security: It has been observed that friendships tend to be more stable than romantic relationships. Assuming this observation to be valid, how would one best be served in prioritizing romantic relationships and friendships? From the perspective of the argument of security, the answer to this question is obvious: The argument of security states that because friendships are more stable than romantic relationships, one should prioritize them over romantic relationships. A variant on this argument takes a pessimistic view towards the possible success of romantic relationships; it holds that they are doomed to failure. When the relationship ends, it is in the best interest of a person to have strong rather than weak friendships to turn to for support. Therefore, it makes sense to invest one’s energy in strengthening friendships than strengthening romantic relationships, because the romantic relationships are destined for failure while the friendships are not. Assuming the observations that these arguments rely on are correct, “bros before hos” seems to follow, because the arguments are, or, at least, seem, valid.

1.2: The Player’s Dilemma: Suppose there are two friends and they each have a choice between investing in their friendship and investing in potential romantic relationships. If they both pursue their own romantic interests, their friendship with each other will decay, and, without any friends, their ability to pass themselves off as promising romantic partners declines. If one invests in the friendship while the other pursues his own romantic interests, the one pursuing his own romantic interest benefits doubly, taking advantage of the friendship to the disadvantage of the other friend. If they both invest primarily in their friendship, their chances at forming satisfying romantic relationships decreases in relation to the previous scenario, but they both benefit from having a stable and satisfying friendship. The following table summarizes the payoffs for each of the options. The actual numbers are arbitrary, but the relationships between the numbers are important to note.

What is a logical individual, desiring his own best interests, going to do? The logical decision is to always pursue romantic interests. If one friend chooses to invest in the friendship the other stands to gain more from pursuing romantic relationships than selflessly investing in the friendship as well. If one friend chooses not to invest in the friendship and instead pursue romantic relationships, the other is better off doing the same and not supporting his selfish friend. Assuming both friends are logical, then, the outcome in the lower right square will always happen. This is unfortunate, because if both friends invested in the friendship, they both would have gotten a better payoff. Philosophers and Economists refer to this as the Player’s Dilemma, and it is a pretty convincing argument for why you cannot simply let a player play. All parties fare better in a system in which everyone follows “bros before hos.”

1.3: The Argument From the Need For Moral Guidelines: Many people have the desire to act morally, but few have the ability to infallibly sense what is moral. Since one cannot trust one’s senses alone in determining whether or not one is acting morally, one should look elsewhere. Starting with the assumption that in any moral code worth following there is some characteristic of a moral action that makes it moral, one might reason that if someone found something in common amongst most moral actions that was not similarly common amongst immoral actions, other actions that shared that trait would probably also be moral. One need not assume that it is this trait that makes the actions moral, it may merely be the case that whatever causes actions to be moral also causes them to be the other trait. The point is that if a feature is consistent amongst known moral actions, the idea that this feature is correlated with morality is more parsimonious than the idea that the consistency is mere coincidence. Proponents of this argument then state that amongst behavior dealing with the choice between prioritizing friendships or romantic relationships which has a clear moral value, it is the case that behavior prioritizing friendships tends to be moral and behavior prioritizing romantic relationships tends to be immoral. If this point and the previous assumption are granted, it follows that a consistent feature of all relevant moral action is prioritizing friendships, so, when one desires to act morally when faced with such a decision, one should choose to follow “bros before hos”.

Section 2: Questions

How does the “bros before hos” guideline compare with the guideline “chicks before dicks?”

To answer this question, one must first examine how the phrase “bros before hos” evolved. The original meaning of the phrase did not translate into “friends before romantic associations.” Originally, it meant “males before females.” Since there is no intrinsic reason to universally prioritize one gender over the other, it might strike some as curious that such an arbitrary guideline could have been accepted. However, the circle of friends in which “bros before hos” originated was primarily composed of heterosexual males, the guideline “males before females” functionally became the useful “friends before romantic associations” guideline.

The guideline “chicks before dicks” arose when a group of friends composing primarily of heterosexual females observed the usefulness of the “bros before hos” guideline and sought to adopt it. Of course, they couldn’t adopt the guideline “males before females.” This would accomplish the opposite of their intended goal. So, the phrase “chicks before dicks” was coined, and, because of the composition of the circles of friends that adopted it, it was the same functional guideline as “bros before hos” was for the circles in which it was popular.

In our society, many circles of friends are composed almost entirely of one gender and in almost all of them heterosexuality is assumed. So, the two separate guidelines crafted for heterosexual male and female groups satisfied a large number of people. Still, neither guideline truly expressed the underlying reason why both guidelines were so successful, that being the validity of prioritizing friends above romantic associations. It was members of mixed groups that discovered the underlying guideline when application of either guideline as it was then understood was applied. They realized that even though their romantic interests were of the same gender as some of their friends, those friends were entitled to the same treatment as their other friends. Rather than creating a new phrase, these groups simply modified the most popular phrase, “bros before hos,” so that it carried the new meaning, “prioritize your friendships above your romantic relationships.”

This modification made “chicks before dicks” quite worthless, as “bros before hos” now accomplished exactly what “chicks before dicks” was supposed to accomplish. The use of “chicks before dicks” is therefore discouraged, because its language is equally sexist as “bros before hos” and the phrase itself does not lend itself as easily to the new, better meaning. Besides, “sisters before misters” is a much nicer sounding phrase. It also is less offensive than “bros before hos,” so, though it is less popular, it is an acceptable substitute version of “bros before hos.” Even better is “mates before dates.” The critical point is that both phrases mean the same thing.

What does one do if his significant other is also his best friend?

It is important to note that in a sensible application of the “bros before hos” guideline, one should not merely consider the nature of the relationship, but also the strength of the relationship. It would be ridiculous to sacrifice a healthy, long-term relationship for the sake of a friendship that was just created. Still, a person cannot elevate his romantic relationship to the status of a friendship for this consideration no matter how strong that relationship is. After all, a romantic relationship is very little besides a friendship with romance. Also, if it is the case that a person’s best friend is also his significant other, maybe this came about because that person violated “bros before hos” way too often and nobody else wanted to associate with him.

How is one to treat spouses?

Spouses are family. “Bros before hos” does not discuss how one is to prioritize family in relation to friendships and romantic relationships. Convention is to follow a “family before bros before hos” guideline, but this is in no way universal. However, if one finds herself continually violating “bros before hos” for the sake of some romantic interest, maybe she should just marry the person for the sake of not violating a rule that is quite sensible.

There are many things that the “bros before hos” guideline does not arrange according to value. Barring other equally sensible guidelines, one is advised to prioritize these things at one’s own discretion. As for myself, I follow a “revenge before family before bros before hos before your garbage” type system. Basically it says that I always make time to get revenge, and that I totally don’t have time for your garbage.

Sanjay Presents Common Knowledge
I’ll send you back to the essence.