More atheistic ignorance or miscontruance which inventions would justify their rejection.
First, rape of a betrothed women was a capital crime:
"But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:" (Deuteronomy 22:25)
Second, unlike today and the mess it has resulted in, the Bible places a priority upon virginity until marriage, and marriage, and if a man who forces a women not engaged then he had to marry her and he may not put her away all his days.
Gill, who spends much time on Jewish tradition, comments,
"if her father and she agreed to it; and in such a case the man was not at his liberty to refuse, be she what she would, agreeable or not, handsome or ugly; he must, as the Jews express it, drink out of his pot, or marry her, if she is lame, or blind, or full of ulcers (Misn. Cetubot, c. 3. sect. 5.)
And note that marriage in Israel was a social contract, and as seen in Gn. 34, mistreatment of a sister could be severely dealt with.
Third, the Bible cast the incestuous rape of David's daughter Tamar by Amnon (2Sa. 13) in a very bad light, and which resulted in Amnon's death.
However, it is my experience that atheists cannot tolerate any refutation of their fallacious charges.
Lady seems to be hung-up on the issues of slaves and the relatively newfangled idea of “spousal rape.” Slaves weren’t an ideal situation (and biblical slaves might be prisoners of war but not arbitrary kidnapees), however the modern counter to the idea of slavery which is based in the “I own myself” philosophy is also unhelpful because that means becoming a spiritual island.
But if she can't prove he forced her, she dies too. That means it's not rape that's being punished, it's sex. She might escape the penalty if she can prove he forced her, but it won't change the nature of his crime or his punishment.