'm gonna kinda coin an "odd" stance, and just. see what happens, ig.
So, almost a year ago, I came up with a stance term that essentially combines informed consent, harm reduction, and bodily autonomy into something that, i think, simply explains it all faster. Though, I never [or, thoroughly] explained it, even with me using it.
"Informed Harm", was what I came up with.
This stance is for the following.
If one wishes to do something, and researches on what they wish to do, to inform themselves on it, they should. This means that if one researches, they have the right to do what they feel is right. [Education first and foremost]
If one, after research or discussion, wishes to continue through what they want to do, and is accepting of the possibility that there may be additional aftermaths - positive or negative - that they are free to do so. [ Bodily Autonomy ]
If one, after research or discussion, doesn't feel comfortable, and wants to find alternatives, or reduce the harm that may happen, that they can [Harm reduction]
This also applies to a consensual dynamic - where both partners have the right to do something if it's agreed on and consented to. If not, to communicate on what to do, or what to not do, or what is a viable alternative or reduction. [Informed consent]
Meaningless or not, this stance or philosophy has a form of meaning to me. Education is a very important tool, and should absolutely not be a privilege. There should be more discussions on it in general, even.
If you feel this fits you, then be my guest and use this term as you wish. This is, evidently, a very strongly pro-consent term alongside its other stances, however, and stands for no non-consensual harm.
There is also no inherent contact stance to this, but I'm a contact stance abolitionist who isn't as focused on contact discourse.
