To be clear, you're combining what is effectively assault and voluntary exposure into constitutional framework, which is not how it works.. It rarely even works in modern legal framework either..
You have the right for me not to burn you with a match, but I am however not responsible for you voluntarily placing your hand on the match and burning yourself.
Both have the same result, both are not the same.
The logical way around this is to either not expose yourself to locations/people that you assume are a threat or to account for that issue and protect yourself in accordance with the increased threat.
There is nothing intrinsically (to my knowledge) in the constitution that would allow you to argue that it is constitutional for everyone to agree to your terms and expectations.