@hawkeye10,
No, the definition of rape has not changed, any more than the definition of running a red light has changed.
Rape has
always been non consensual sexual intercourse/sexual contact.
Nor has the legal definition of "consent" changed--it still means with the agreement or with the permission of the individual involved.
The state has always deemed some vulnerable individuals legally unable to consent--the mentally impaired, the cognitively impaired, the severely disabled, individuals who are comatose or barely conscious, the mentally ill, those below the age of consent.
While you see this as taking away the rights of such individuals, most people see it is a legitimate effort on the part of the state to protect these vulnerable individuals--to protect their right not be violated or harmed or exploited by acts done to them they cannot control, or can not fully and willingly and freely consent to because they can't fully appreciate or understand the nature and consequences of those acts.
Do you want those severely impaired by Alzheimer's not to have such protections? How about the mentally retarded, or those who are so physically disabled they cannot offer either verbal or physical resistance? How about those who are 10 years old? Those who are comatose or have impaired consciousness due to drugs or alcohol?
With the exception of the physically disabled, none of those individuals would be legally competent to enter into or sign a legal contract while in those states or conditions either. And if they did sign a sign a contract while in those states or conditions, the contract could be voided. They are deemed not able to consent--with good reason.
Your gripe is mainly that you don't want 12 year olds considered "jail bait"--you want them able to legally consent to sex with an adult. You allegedly are advocating for their "right" to have sex. Well, they have no such "right", any more than they have the right to buy tobacco or alcohol, the right to drive a car, the right to vote, or the right to enter into a legal contract. They are children.
Because you might want legal 12 year old sex partners, the law is not going to change to accommodate you.
The rape laws have not changed--rape is still non consensual sexual contact, just as it has always been. And rapists are still not easy to catch. Most rapists are not caught. The government has no "clear purpose of trying to create more lawbreakers" with the rape laws--that assumption is so absurd it almost boarders on paranoia. We have jails filled to over capacity, and probably a greater percentage of people incarcerated than any other "civilized" country--the government has no need to create laws for the sole purpose of filling jail cells. Laws are created to
deter certain behaviors--to get people not to engage in certain behaviors, like stealing, driving while drunk, evading taxes,
and raping. If people violate those laws, they are responsible for their actions, it's not the government's fault for having the laws. We need the laws to help control certain behaviors, and to help individuals control their own behaviors.
And, the only "expansion" regarding consent descriptions was the inclusion of "No means no" in situations not requiring force on the part of the perpetrator. That was added so that a woman does not have to be beaten to a pulp trying to prove she resisted a rape--she just has to say, "NO". And the man is expected to heed that, "NO. But the definition of rape was not changed, just the manner in which the female could indicate non consent. Rape is still rape.
It is rapists who are trying to nullify consent--by either not bothering to be sure they really have it, and that the woman is freely and willingly consenting, and fully understands what she is doing, or by ignoring her when she says, "No". If rapists weren't the ones nullifying the requisite to have consent, and nullifying the need to be sure they have consent, there would be no rapes--the sex would all be consensual. And that seems to be the point you fail to understand.
