THROUGHOUT HISTORY, RAPE LAWS HAVE BEEN CONTROLLED BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC'S FEELINGS ABOUT THE MEANING OF SOCIETY AND ABOUT THE ROLE OF ITS MEMBERS. RAPE LAWS HAVE BEEN USED TO DEFEND THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE, PUBLIC AND PERSONAL MORALITY, CONCEPTS ABOUT THE PROPER ROLES OF MEN AND WOMEN, AND IDEALS OF MANHOOD. BUT RAPE LAWS HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROTECT THE SOCIAL, MORAL, AND EMOTIONAL STRUCTURE OF SOCIETY. CONTRADICTORY GOALS OFTEN HAVE RESULTED IN CONTRADICTORY OR UNJUST TREATMENT OF BOTH VICTIMS AND OFFENDERS IN RAPE CASES. THE COURTS HAVE FACED DILEMMAS IN ATTEMPTING TO SATISFY THE CONTRADICTORY NEEDS OF THE PUBLIC WITH REGARD TO RAPE CASES. FOR EXAMPLE, IT APPEARS TO BE INAPPROPRIATE AND YET NECESSARY FOR THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, IN HANDLING RAPE CASES, TO DECIDE AT WHAT POINT A PERSON'S SELF-DETERMINATION HAS BEEN VIOLATED. RAPE PROSECUTION IN THE SOUTH OF BLACK MALES ACCUSED OF RAPING WHITE WOMEN, AND THE PASSAGE OF UNNEEDED 'SEXUAL PSYCHOPATH LAWS' AT THE END OF WORLD WAR II ARE CONSIDERED AS EXAMPLES OF PUBLIC PREJUDICES AND MISCONCEPTIONS BEING REFLECTED IN THE LEGAL STRUCTURE. A REALISTIC REASSESSMENT OF ALL LAWS RELATED TO THE VICTIMIZATION OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN BY MEANS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IS NEEDED IN MOST CONTEMPORARY SOCIETIES. A BIBLIOGRAPHY IS INCLUDED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--LKM)