What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Randy Carson]

Yes. Because no one else would marry her. She would forced into a life of destitution and/or prostitution. Marriage was for her benefit.

If their true concern is for her financial well being, it would make far more sense to have a law that says a woman's rapist must provide for her, instead of forcing her to spend the rest of her life with her attacker.
If no one will marry her because she is now "spoiled goods" (which would probably be the same if she had consensual sex before marriage), then that's just backasswards thinking. There's nothing inherently 'wrong' or 'dirty' about a woman who's been raped, and the men who wrote that law or wouldn't marry her just need to get the fuck over themselves.

Again, you need to think this through.

Let's say the man who claimed the girl as a spoil of war was in his mid 20's maybe 30. Suppose the girls was 15 or 16. Lifespans were shorter and women outlive men for genetic (and reasons of war and occupations). So this guy dies 20 years later leaving this now 35-year-old woman with no children and no income.

Destitution.

BUT if he was taken her into his home, cared for her (maybe even loved her), provided for her needs, PROVIDED HER WITH CHILDREN, then what happens after he dies?

Her kids care for her in her old age.

God's plan is better for her.

But what seems to be lost in all this breathless outrage is this: if the man WANTS the girl, he can't just rape her and move on. He HAS to marry her first. Which means he really needs to ask himself whether he wants to be married before he drops drawers with this girl.

The marriage requirement PREVENTED some women from being "raped" altogether. Some guys simply won the battle and went home without having raped anyone OR taking a female prize.