Feminist scholars and activists have long sought to reform rape laws and evidence rules in order to increase the number of successful rape prosecutions in the United States. In partial response to these efforts, and in an effort to decrease crime, the 104th Congress amended the Federal Rules of Evidence by adding Rule 413, which makes prior acts of sexual assault by alleged rapists admissible in criminal sexual assault cases. The new Rule 413 was meant to level the legal playing field between rapists and their accusers. Professor Baker argues that the new Rule is misguided because it fails to recognize the different reasons why men rape. Consequently, the Rule is likely to affect poor and minority men and women adversely, to increase the number of men unjustly convicted, and ultimately, to yield fewer rape convictions than its proponents hope. Nevertheless, Professor Baker argues that prior act evidence can be an important means for identifying the motive of an accused rapist and, when properly understood, should be selectively admitted under Rule 404. This Article considers the various motivations behind the different typologies of rape and demonstrates how a more realistic understanding of motive can at once secure rape convictions, refute persistent stereotypes, advance our understanding of rape, and promote the equitable enforcement of the law.