Part 1
According to common law defines rape as unlawful intercourse by a man against a woman who is not his wife by force or threat against her will. (so theoretically because she is his wife it wasn't rape even if he forced her)
According to Texas Penal Code 21.01 Sexual assault includes any kind of sexual touching, and Texas Penal Code 22.011 causing any kind of penetration without the persons consent, to Texas Penal Code 22.021 that is any of the above stated but person is in fear of bodily injury or their life.
I believe one of the problems with proving rape between a husband and a wife is there history of consensual sex. It's expected for a man and women to have sex and not easily believed if the wife screams rape. His bodily fluids can't be used for evidence because it's expected it'll be on the sheets and any other area, just as it would be expected for the womans fluids as well. This also includes fingerprints, bodily hair, skin cells, etc. (However, I believe one way to get past that is if the man (or even woman) has a history of violence that either friends, family or the police know about)
If a prostitute is claiming rape by a male customer, she (or he) has to somehow overcome their profession. Fortunately the "Rape Shield Laws passed by many states to limit the extent to which defense attorneys in a rape case can inquire into a victims past sexual life" (Thomas J Gardner. Terry M. Anderson. Criminal Law. 12th Ed. Pg 332)will keep the victim from having to defend themselves due to their reputation. Having this safe guard will help to see the person as the victim. Whether we like or not if we were sitting on a jury, where we knew a prostitute was claiming rape that would taint our judgement (if we realize it or not). There's a stigma that comes with being a prostitute and just because this is what this person chooses as a profession doesn't mean they deserve to be raped. The deserve to have the same rights of protection afforded to them just like we do.
Part 2
According to the paper provided it says California, Maryland, Missouri, Nevada and New York have the harshest penalties. However, I have to disagree with California, looking over the paper I have to say I wouldn't consider California's strict at all. According to California's law you could get up to 4 yr for any of the offenses except in one instance where you could get prison time that would be determined by the judge or jury.
I found Arkansas to be pretty lenient. A 20 yr old offender could get up to 1 yr in Prison for having sex with someone 16 or under. And Idaho with rape of female under 18 could get anything from 1 yr to life in prison. These punishments don't seem like a punishment. It seems to me that it doesn't really send a message that rape is wrong. It's more like rape will get you vacation in jail. I know Idaho says "to life in Prison" but this seems to be at the judges or juries discretion. There should be a specific time table like Kentucky and Maryland and many others have.
I have to say that I disagree with Louisiana's consent statement in there lawl. It basically says that a younger person can agree to have sex with an older person but an older person can't agree to have sex with a younger person. If the age of consent is suppose to be 18, how exactly can a 13 yr old agree to have sex with someone that is 16? The website wasn't kidding when it says its complicated. It almost seems like a trap and goes to my argument in an earlier post that maybe we need to have laws so the one who arouses the older person, then has sex with them, then claims to be raped is also somehow punished.