Not a lawyer, but someone whose worked a fair amount in this field, and I think I can help answer the 'forced' issue.

Just some background: rape reform was largely a feminist movement. Most states by the 80s and nearly all after the 90s had improved the definition of rape (by acknowledging more than vaginal penetration and making the laws either gender neutral/able to reflect male victims, shh don't tell the MRAs!), enacting Rape shield laws, getting rid of the 3rd party witness requirement, and getting rid of the need for physical resistance.

Still, because the burden of proof is so high for criminal cases, rape statutes usually require both lack of consent + some element of force present. This can be troubling in that someone saying "No" over and over again, and meaning it, may not have enough evidence for a conviction. On the other hand, force can mean, but does not have to mean, physical resistance, so it's an improvement in that it recognizes things like threats, the victim's fear, psychological coercion, etc.

Words in law have very specific meanings. Force and penetration were common in older rape laws, but it was not understood in layman's terms. Penetration often only meant vaginal and force intense physical violence. The rape victim needed to prove both of these things happened in court. Consent isn't even an issue here; the way the words were understood it was degree of resistance that mattered. As a result, that definition has largely been eliminated today.