What happens to the rapist, then? Can he get partial custody of the child? Can he use that as an excuse to keep meeting or at least indirectly interacting with his rape victim?
What a great healing agent, to force women to be repeatedly reminded of that time when they were raped.
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,
29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
That's pure evil, but one part stands out, not as the worst part, but somehow still stands out.
"and they are discovered." What's that got to do with anything? If this is from the religious point of view, then surely God knows what he did, so why would it matter if they're discovered. If it's from a legal point of view, then of course you can only redress crimes that are discovered, so there's no need to include that phrase.
So, including that phrase doesn't seem to have any relevance or benefit. Conversely, including a phrase like that does imply that if they're not discovered, then God doesn't care whether anything happens to the man. The girl has been violated and lost her virginity. But since they weren't discovered, there's no penalty, even from God.
The other thing this makes me think about is, "If the penalty for breaking a law is simply a fine, then the law really only applies to poor people." So, a person who can afford fifty shekels of silver can just pick any maiden he wants to marry, as long as she's not pledged to be married, even if he's old and gross. All he has to do is something terrible and then get "discovered." This section simply seems to legalize rape for rich people.
Because if they are not discovered then it's just her word against his so there's no proof so he's free to go rape someone else. Honestly, I think that's really what that means.
A child that will be a living, breathing reminder of their attack for the rest of their life is also a cruel thing to force upon them. But this is masochismsadism.
Hate to be THAT person, but it's sadism if you are referring to the guy who said it. Misogyny often breeds both though, so I can imagine the confusion.