Dislike? I'm fine with them. Especially since you made it clear that you can taphas a girl (manipulate, i.e. seize; chiefly to capture, wield, specifically, to overlay; figuratively, to use unwarrantably:--catch, handle, (lay, take) hold (on, over), stop, surprise, take.) ...and your only punishment is that she has to marry you. You have made my case for me. And I love you pretending over and over that seizing, capturing and holding a girl isn't rape.
But if you’re trying to ask me if I regard the case in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 as being equivalent to today’s case of statutory rape, then I say it is—
Okay. Now. Do a little mind exercise. Ask yourself if they thought so back then. Did they? Is there anything in the Bible that, say, sets an age at which a girl can be married? Sets an age at which a girl can be said to consent?
In fact, since you're the expert, can you please tell me the terms used for a betrothed damsel as opposed to an unbetrothed one? Clearly they are using a different term in 22:25 than in 22:28.
You’re getting words mixed up again. “Taphas” is the means by which the fellow induced the girl to “shakab” (which means to “lay”, and by figurative meaning, have sex) with him. And again, that’s but one sense of the English word “capture”, not all senses (which renders English a more corrupt language than Hebrew).
I don’t think I need to say twice what I already said. It isn’t too long ago that “shakab” as a result of “taphas” (no violence) resulted in a marriage in the USA, remember—but never in the case of “khazaq”-induced “shakab”, which is violent rape.