I guess you flunked theology. I didn't want to have to continue the chapter, but here goes, in KJV...which explicitly states the word "rape"...
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.(In case you don't get it, the idea is that if it's in the city, then she obviously "wanted it" if she didn't cry out.)
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 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.--Deuteronomy 22:25-29 (KJV)
And if you like the idea of a girl getting to marry her rapist, perhaps you'll like the Lego version. Personally, I find the ideas repugnant.
I don't really see the connection between that and what were discussing.
The society this was written for was very different from our own and women were considered objects. By forcing the man who rapes a woman to marry her and NEVER BE ABLE TO DIVORCE HER, you are setting up a strong disincentive for any male to rape a woman. By requring him to pay the father, the law is rcognizing the cultural norm at the time that the crime was as much a crime against property as the father owned his children as well as his wife, as a crime against a person.
What this neolithic concept has to do with modern day people living in Saudi Arabia escapes me.
Perhaps you flunked logic also.