Is it Better To Be an Orphan or a Stepchild?

theoutsider

Well-known member
#1
I'm speaking figuratively here in terms of your dealings with people. An orphan is a person left on his or her own without support, much company or notoriety. A stepchild is someone who's been accepted by others but treated without much regard or respect, a doormat. However, he or she is accepted and therefore enjoys some of the perks that come with being a part of a group (family).

So, which would you rather be? Not lonely but treated horribly? Given support, however reluctant, but paying the price of much of your dignity to receive it (stepchild). Or would you rather be ostracized, left on your own, ignored and largely disregarded (orphan)? Either is the lesser of two evils but is one better than the other?

I know I would choose being an orphan over a stepchild largely because I feel one leaves me with more dignity than the other.
 

lily

Well-known member
#2
i think it's probably better to be a stepchild b/c you'll have family there whereas an orphan's parents aren't real but then they could still be very nice.
 

Hot_Tamale

Well-known member
#3
i think it's probably better to be a stepchild b/c you'll have family there whereas an orphan's parents aren't real but then they could still be very nice.
Their parents aren't real? Are you referring to them not being "real" in the biological sense? In the U.S. an adopted child should share the same rights as the biological child (protected by the legal system if they're abused, etc).
 

LoyalXenite

Well-known member
#5
Both options have a chance for horrible treatment and abuse as well as to find loving homes with non-biological parents. Imo it really depends on how the system goes for the individual.
 

theoutsider

Well-known member
#6
You guys are taking the orphan and step-child references literally...lol.
I'm only using the names in the figurative sense. In other words, would you rather be excluded from human contact and ostracized (I refer to this as being an orphan) or would you rather others include you but treat you as if you're not as good as the others in the group (I refer to this as being the step-child). I'm not talking literally about an actual family and/or parents' legal status.
 
#7
You guys are taking the orphan and step-child references literally...lol.
I'm only using the names in the figurative sense. In other words, would you rather be excluded from human contact and ostracized (I refer to this as being an orphan) or would you rather others include you but treat you as if you're not as good as the others in the group (I refer to this as being the step-child). I'm not talking literally about an actual family and/or parents' legal status.
For me, the easy answer would to allow myself to be excluded. In those situations, I could tell myself if I tried to go out and mingle with people and be part of a group, I could and it would be good. For whatever reason I am not.

The reality would be that I would struggle in social groups, and in trying allowing all my flaws and downfalls to be exposed. But I would actually be trying. Even as a failure, I could say I made the attempt.

I'm really not sure what would be better. Because in reality, when I do fail and I don't feel good for trying, I feel bad for failing. But it doesn't feel any better telling myself I could go out and succeed, because I can much more easily convince myself that I will not. And either way, the potential of a good thing is meaningless without following through. Being "able" to do something isn't worth anything, actually doing it is.
 

LoyalXenite

Well-known member
#8
You guys are taking the orphan and step-child references literally...lol.
I'm only using the names in the figurative sense. In other words, would you rather be excluded from human contact and ostracized (I refer to this as being an orphan) or would you rather others include you but treat you as if you're not as good as the others in the group (I refer to this as being the step-child). I'm not talking literally about an actual family and/or parents' legal status.
In that case I want to say I would choose to be ostracized over being belittled, though given the fact that I stayed in an emotionally abusive relationship for a few years I suspect I would actually choose to be included... :eek:mg::kickingmyself::bigsmile:
 

theoutsider

Well-known member
#9
For me, the easy answer would to allow myself to be excluded. In those situations, I could tell myself if I tried to go out and mingle with people and be part of a group, I could and it would be good. For whatever reason I am not.

The reality would be that I would struggle in social groups, and in trying allowing all my flaws and downfalls to be exposed. But I would actually be trying. Even as a failure, I could say I made the attempt.

I'm really not sure what would be better. Because in reality, when I do fail and I don't feel good for trying, I feel bad for failing. But it doesn't feel any better telling myself I could go out and succeed, because I can much more easily convince myself that I will not. And either way, the potential of a good thing is meaningless without following through. Being "able" to do something isn't worth anything, actually doing it is.
Wow. What an excellent answer and well thought out point of view. Thanks for that. Although I prefer to choose orphan, I totally agree with you. It’s easy for me to say I could be a part of a group if I wanted knowing full well it wouldn’t end well for me.
 

theoutsider

Well-known member
#10
In that case I want to say I would choose to be ostracized over being belittled, though given the fact that I stayed in an emotionally abusive relationship for a few years I suspect I would actually choose to be included... :eek:mg::kickingmyself::bigsmile:
Many would and have wound up choosing the path of inclusion at too high of a price. I know I have in the past as well.
 
Top