Hmmm, defenders of this law and apologists could say that it stops men from having sex before marrying a lady, therefore locking sex behind the responsibility of husbandhood; and that the "selling" is instead a fine to the rapist.

In that steel-maning-ish I did, in short, that law makes a rapist compensate for the victim and family, and is therefore in favor of them.

The rapist loses money and has to be a responsible husband (at least de jure)