Editing Assault (section)

===Consent===
Exceptions exist to cover unsolicited physical contact which amount to normal social behavior known as [[de minimis]] harm. Assault can also be considered in cases involving the spitting on or unwanted exposure of bodily fluids to others.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Nemeth |first=Charles P. |title=Criminal law |date=2012 |publisher=Taylor & Francis |isbn=978-1-4398-9787-4 |edition=2nd |location=Boca Raton |pages=218-221}}</ref>

[[consent (criminal law)|Consent]] may be a complete or partial defense to assault. In some jurisdictions, most notably England, it is not a defense where the degree of injury is severe, as long as there is no legally recognized good reason for the assault.<ref>(RvG ref 6. 1980): see {{cite web|title=R v Brown (1993) 2 All ER 75|url=http://lawteacher.net/Criminal/Non+Fatal+Assaults/Consent+R+v+Brown.htm|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071016125514/http://lawteacher.net/Criminal/Non%20Fatal%20Assaults/Consent%20R%20v%20Brown.htm|archive-date=16 October 2007|access-date=2009-09-17|website=LawTeacher}}</ref> This can have important consequences when dealing with issues such as consensual [[sadomasochism|sadomasochistic sexual activity]], the most notable case being the [[Operation Spanner]] case. Legally recognized good reasons for consent include surgery, activities within the rules of a game ([[mixed martial arts]], [[wrestling]], [[boxing]], or [[contact sports]]), bodily adornment (''R v Wilson'' [1996] Crim LR 573), or horseplay (''R v Jones'' [1987] Crim LR 123). However, any activity outside the rules of the game is not legally recognized as a defense of consent. In Scottish law, consent is not a defense for assault.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/1975/1975_JC_30.html|title=''Smart v. H. M. Advocate'', [1975<nowiki>]</nowiki> ScotHC HCJ_1, 1975 SLT 65, 1975 JC 30.|website=bailii.org|access-date=23 July 2018}}</ref>