UK

Fox News Host Megyn Kelly Thinks New 'Yes Means Yes' Is Taking Away Men's Rights

09/07/2015 13:47 BST | Updated 09/07/2015 13:59 BST

A new 'yes-means-yes' law aiming to reduce the number of sexual assaults on American college campuses has been met with a mix of chuckling and wide-eyed derision by Fox News, who didn't fancy changing the habits of a lifetime.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's new law requires "clear affirmative agreement" between two students before sexual activity occurs. It also includes a bill of rights for victims, as well as promoting training for faculty members, police and college students.

Fox News host Megyn Kelly pontificated on when we'd see the end of all this madness with political analyst Brit Hume, chuckling with disbelief as she asked, "has it come to this?"

megyn kelly

Host Megyn Kelly was concerned about the rights of men

As she tore the bill apart, Kelly identified a vital aspect that was missing from Cuomo's new legislation: the very important question, 'what about the men?'

Kelly gave voice to her fear that, whilst the rights of female victims of sexual assault are all well and good, "we are going in a direction where we almost entirely eliminate the rights of men".

Although she didn't specify what rights exactly men were in danger of losing - presumably their right to have sex without asking, which does not actually appear in the U.S. constitution. But when did that ever stop Fox News from banging their fists on desks with rage?

She suggested that, "thanks to the Obama administration", there is now a "presumption of guilt"".

"If you are a young man who gets accused, it's your burden to go in there and prove consent," Kelly added.

The host seemed to be concerned that the agreement would mean "telling you exactly how it's gonna go," presumably forgetting that although it's always nice to maintain an air of mystery in the bedroom, the mechanics of sexual intercourse haven't varied too wildly in the thousands of years since human life began.

Hume was equally horrified by this new development, calling it the "re-regulation of sex".

He suggested that those drawing up the agreement "have never had any sex," and harked back to simpler days when it was known that "boys will be boys, guys are pretty lusty".

He recalled that "you needed to be careful when you got them around young women," but didn't seem to think that getting both sexual partners to consciously assert that consent being given was the answer to this, instead suggesting that it might be worth advocating full gender segregation. Perhaps not entirely seriously.

Despite this, the law has been celebrated for taking action against the large number of sex attacks taking place across US campuses.

Spectacular Fox News FAILS