Abstract: There is a lack of consensus in both theoretical and practical circles regarding the boundary of consent to bodily harm. German and Japanese criminal law theories generally take a positive attitude towards the validity of consent to bodily harm. In contrast, the Anglo-American criminal law tends to limit the use of consent in injury cases, among which the Brown case in the UK has significant reference value. Under the positive view of freedom, the restriction on the consent to harm does not conflict with the protection of individual autonomy. Considering the common cognitive deficiencies and irrational impulses, it is reasonable to adopt appropriate paternalistic intervention in individual choices. Legislators and judges should place the consenter in a real and complex interpersonal relationship within the social, cultural, economic and political contexts to understand the content, nature, and results of the consent. The principle of “invalidity as the principle and validity as the exception” regarding consent is consistent with Chinese culture and social reality.