After a well needed vacation in Spain and Italy in the middle of August, and after a two week fight with a Dengue infection, we’re back to our regularly scheduled programming.
There’s something I love to do on trips - especially those that involve long flights. I’ll find a trilogy to binge-watch. And the ~20 hours of flight time to and back from Barcelona allowed me just that. Considering the nature of the trip —a trip with extended family for 10 days, I wanted to keep the trilogy light-hearted. And it had been a minute since I had watched “The Hangover” trilogy, so that was the selection of choice for this trip.
For those of you who have not seen at least one of the three movies—the reference will be lost on you, but I hope the essence will pass through the filter.
In the beginning of Part 2—during a rehearsal dinner for Stu (one of the main characters) and Lauren’s wedding, Lauren’s father calls Stu “Khao”— a bland soft white rice in lukewarm water—as a part of his toast. Clearly this was meant to insult Stu, but he slyly tries to mask it as a compliment stating that the world needs “Khao” for sustenance. This comment disturbs Stu but he lets it pass.
In the end of the film Stu confronts his future father-in-law and admits that he wishes he was Khao…he wishes he was bland, but for better or for worse he was not. He pauses and tells him that he’s got a dark side…he says, “I’ve got a demon in me”. This wasn’t the first time Stu admitted he had a dark side. In fact, in a pivotal (and quite hilarious) moment in the middle of the second film, after learning about the disastrous rampage he had initiated after getting drugged, he decides that he should call off the wedding, that he needed to save Lauren from him and his dark side. He said he was better off shifting his dental practice to Bangkok and living a life of squalor because that was all he deserved. But by the end of the movie he accepts his dark side and says, “I’ve got a demon in me” with acceptance.
He was referring to the same actions, the same decisions, the same consequences but in one scene he was dejected and ready to give up on life, and in another instance he was saying it with his head held high, holding his fiancee’s hand, and confronting his future father-in-law. How could the same experience yield to such a different outlook?
The fact that I was reflecting on a Hangover film itself was a huge surprise to me—some would say that in itself is a disturbing vice. But I let myself indulge further…
At risk of stating the obvious, we all have demons and we all have vices. But it’s how we interact with those “faults” that I find intriguing. Some choose to suppress their demons at any cost. Some choose to indulge. And an elite few have accepted their vices and live with them on their terms.
But when it comes to our faults, what is suppression, indulgence, and acceptance?
Obviously like with every reflection, there isn’t a right or wrong answer here—because I think there’s a time for everything—I want to take a deeper dive into when suppression is best, indulgence is entertained, and when acceptance is achieved.
Suppression
After the hilarious shit-show of the first film, Stu does everything in his power to not let similar events transpire. He refuses to have a bachelor party. He refuses to have a drink. He is sceptical of hanging out with his friends on the first night of the wedding festivities. He does everything in his power to suppress situations that may lead to his “inner demon” breaking through the locked door. We often play this card with our vices—have a sweet tooth? Completely restrict all desserts, candy, and sugary treats. Frequently consume alcohol? Go cold turkey and refuse to have any libations. Doom scrolling on social media every night? Delete all social apps. The list goes on and on.
Suppression often feels like the safest strategy because it removes choice from the equation. If the dessert isn’t within reaching distance, we can’t eat it. If the social app isn’t on our phone we can’t engage.
And suppression can absolutely be the apt choice when our self control is compromised. A recovering alcoholic will have a difficult time moderating their consumption. A distraught lover may find it heart wrenching to keep distance from their ex.
But a locked door doesn’t make what’s behind that door disappear. In fact some would argue that the more energy we spend on keeping the door locked the more power we give to whatever is on the other side. We don’t stop wanting the dessert, we instead think about it all day.
That’s the limitation of suppression. It can work well when we’re able to control every variable, but life isn’t like that. We can’t control every variable. So although it can be perfect for the short term, it can be detrimental in the long term.
Indulgence
When Stu expresses to his friends that he will not have a drink or not have a bachelor party, his friends tell him he can have one beer. What is one beer going to do to him? Stu finally accepts. We often give ourselves scenarious to indulge in our vices. Hey, I’m on vacation, I can eat all the desserts I want and drink a little too much.
Indulgence gives us permission to briefly step outside the rules we have created for ourselves. And sometimes thats perfectly fine. A life built on restrictions and suppression can and will be exhausting. Not every desire is a threat and not every moment of excess means we have lost control. There is joy in ordering a dessert, staying out later than planned, or having a beer with a friend.
But “just this once” can quickly become “one more time”. One beer can quickly become three. Fifteen minutes of social app scrolling can become hours. Indulgence is acceptable when its a conscious choice with clear boundaries—not an automatic response disguised as a reward.
And when those boundaries inevitably fail we may choose to have bouts of suppression. People end up having lifetime relationships with their vices in these two buckets. Juggling between suppression and indulgence. But there is another path. A path that is often difficult to understand and one that I will try my best to explain the way I know how.
Acceptance
By the end of the film, Stu is no longer convincing himself that he’s “Khao”. He accepts that there is a side to him capable of reckless behaviour, anger, and chaos. But accepting that side doesn’t mean that he intends on spending the rest of his life waking up in Bangkok with fresh face tattoos. Acceptance means that he no longer believes its existence makes him unworthy of love.
The best why I can differentiate accepting our vices and indulging in our vices is our mindset during each phase. Indulgence is: I know I want that dessert so I WILL have it every Sunday along with my cheat meal. Acceptance is: I know I have a sweet tooth but I decide what to do with it. I remember when I wanted to be off sugar, I thought I had found the ultimate cheat code with sweets and desserts with stevia or monk fruit extract. I was eliminating processed sugar but I was eating “sugar-free” desserts 3-4 times a week consuming hundreds of extra calories.
I understand that sometimes the lines can be muddled between acceptance and balanced indulgence. Part of being human is that those lines can have blurry boundaries.
I myself am constantly learning what vices require suppression, when I can allow indulgences, and what faults I have accepted and have a mature relationship with.
And I guess what makes it more exciting, scary, and challenging is that all my faults are in different buckets at different times. Some of my vices I need to suppress, some I allow to indulge in, and some I have accepted. But in other times in my life I’ve had a different relationship with those same vices.
And I think the biggest take home message I can give you is to be HONEST about your relationship with your vices and to be honest about which bucket that vice deserves to be in RIGHT NOW. Recognising the different categories and having an internal dialogue about them and spending some time to decide which vices belong in which category is 80% of the work.
So I hope this reflection can begin that internal dialogue.