[NickMPK]

First, I think the whole "rape isn't about sex, it's about control/violence" is seriously overstated. Maybe it's true in the case of a certain type of rapist. But I think most pedophiles assault children because they are sexually attracted to children, not because they want to "control" children. And most date rapes occur because the guy really wants to have sex, not because he want to "control" his date, or he is seeking violence. Both of these people would much rather have consensual sex with their object of desire, and use rape/assault as a "last resort" to get it.

The key principle here I think is that you want to write laws so that it is easy for people to know when they are breaking them. The more specific crimes you define, along with specific gradations, the easier it is for people to stay within the law, and the less variation you will get in conviction and sentencing for similar offensive acts.

For example, how do you write a law that defines what is inappropriate contact with a child without making some reference to the sexual nature of the contact? Similarly, there are some forms of physical contact with adults that are socially acceptable without explicit consent when applied to certain parts of the body, but which would constitute a sexual assault if applied with similar "force" to other parts of the body. Writing a law that doesn't specifically distinguish these two situations would give too much power to the victim, the prosecutor, and the jury to determine when someone should be punished for what they though was socially acceptable contact, and would thus make it more difficult for the "offender" to know when he was within the law.