Have you ever entered a situation, where you have in a bad mood and you don't want to show it? Leaving you to put a mask and try to act as if nothing happened.

Is this the right action? I mean, should you sacrifice your chance to vent this anger to order to please others?

For those who watched "Anger Management", you all would still remember a part of the story, where Dr. Buddy Rydell(Jack Nickelson) compared between 2 types of people. The Explosive type, Sam (Kevin Nealon) and the Implosive type, Dave Buznik(Adam Sandler). Saying that even though the explosive type of people are deemed to be the ones with Anger Management problems, the implosive type of people will lead to more problems in the long run as the amount of anger "stored" up in them finally implodes when it overloads.

Though shown in a humourous way, it certainly is food for thought, if social expectations of everybody being the Implosive type is really correct.

It is very obvious that socially we are asked to hold back on our true feelings. Even from a Chinese Proverb:
"If you are patient in one moment of anger, you will escape a hundred days of sorrow."

Another point of view from Greek Philosopher Anon:
"Anger is not only inevitable, but it is necessary. For in it's place is indifference, the worst of all human qualities."

While we believe that we should mask our feelings for courtesy's sake, the chance that it may imploded us in the future is very real. So WHAT exactly is the correct choice? Bear in mind that while being an Implosive type sounds logically correct, it is socially wrong and vice versa for the Explosive type.

Let me leave you to comtemplate with a quote from a famous book The Five People You Meet in Heaven:
"Holding anger is a poison. It eats you from inside. We think that hating is a weapon that attacks the person who harmed us. But hatred is a curved blade. And the harms we do, we do to ourselves. "

There ain't no such thing as a win-win situation in life dudes.