Regarding Deuteronomy 22:28-29:
> If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Critics often find this passage to be unfair. However, understanding the social context is crucial.

First, the objection is raised that the victim may not want to marry the rapist. In modern times this would be a sensible objection; but for the ancients, this was a highly viable and indeed merciful solution. The victim would no longer be regarded as marriageable and would therefore lose means of interdependent support. The rapist is here being required to provide that support. It is quite unlikely in this social context that the victim would refuse this arrangement; indeed, they might well demand such an arrangement. This is not a matter of having the rapist be one's loving partner, or cohort for further sexual relations.

Second, it is asked why the father gets money rather than the victim. This is related to another ancient practice, the dowry. A girl who is married becomes part of a new family, which she goes on to support of her own means, and now relies upon for support; at the same time, her former family loses her support and assistance in daily survival, but gains nothing practical in return—hence the dowry. The effect of the dowry was to make up for that loss of essential support, and in light of the first item above, payment to the father is quite fair, for it is his family that must now continue to support the girl for the rest of her life.

Some may still find the above objectionable; but it is important not to make anachronistic moral judgments upon situations far removed from our own context. Additionally, some scholars note that the Hebrew word merely means "lie with" and forced intercourse is only assumed by implication, leaving open the possibility of a different dynamic.