What men and women could do sexually was largely based on ownership and responsibility, not some arbitrary rule against sex outside of marriage. Of course, a family would discourage their daughters from being whores because that was an embarrassment to them. Likewise, if two young people had sex because they loved each other, that was the same as a proposal because a fiance was basically just a husband you didn't yet live with. But the parents could also break that engagement.
When there weren't parents (or at least a father) involved, then there was no bride price to be paid. If the woman was considered spoils of war, same thing. It could all be spoken of in negative terms, just because a couple was taking a path outside the normal cultural ideal. But when King Solomon was said to have all those women, not all of them were wives. Many of them were concubines.
Concubines weren't a new concept. Genesis 22, 25, 35, 36, Judges 8:31, Judges 19, 2 Samuel 3, 5.
Saul had one or more concubines. David, who the bible says was a man after God's own heart, had multiple concubines.
So make no mistake about it. Concubines weren't married. They were given rights in the household by the man, but this was "sex outside of marriage".
So what's the point?
The point I'm making is that there is no strict Hebrew/Israelite standard for who or how many you can have sex with. The more money you had the more women you could afford. And typically, unless you caught her eye and she was in love with you, then there were a lot of women who simply took these positions for reasons of financial security. There wouldn't even be 12 tribes of Israel without Jacob having sex with women he wasn't married to. The only real difference between a concubine and a whore is that a whore was a free agent and was having sex with multiple men for money. And its quite possible that many harlots simply graduated into becoming wives or concubines once they found a "john" they liked or who had enough money to take them in and off the market.
Laban practically threw Leah at Jacob because of how difficult it was for him to find her (sell her to) a husband. Women who weren't as attractive simply weren't getting picked as much and the older they got the less their chances. So you can see how a woman could get too old or not be attractive enough for the men who actually have the money to pay the bride price... so then they stay with their fathers until their father dies or something else happens and they end up having to fend for themselves.
And since everyone wasn't into marrying their cousins this also left a lot of Hebrew women out in the cold.
Their system... a system of buying women to be wives... is what created harlots. Harlots weren't doing it for fun. This was a consequences of a BAD SYSTEM which was made much worse by wars and their husbands dying in battle.
It is easy for men to judge women because the man, in Hebrew/Israelite culture, was afforded every privilege and benefit. He could have sex outside of marriage. He could have multiple wives. He could have concubines. So what was the big deal about marriage then? What was special about it?
Marriage was a status in which the wife was bound to the husband. She belonged to him and so other men had to leave her alone. It kept other dudes from stealing your PS4. If they were caught stealing your PS4 then they could both be stoned for adultery. The law had nothing to do with love or happiness and everything to do with property rights.
If your wife hates you, you still PAID for her. Under Moses, you were allowed to put HER away. I haven't seen evidence that she was allowed to put the husband away because that "putting away" is literally about putting them out of the "house" (tent/etc). Deuteronomy 24. And it was the man who owned the house. I think if it was the woman who owned everything it should have been allowed but there is simply no provision in Deuteronomy 24 for the woman to not be happy with her husband and divorce HIM. And even in verse 7 we see an almost seamless transition to talking about taking other MEN as merchandise and selling "him" not her.
Now if you consider Deuteronomy 21:10-14 then I think this gets a little murky, allowing room for legalistic people to find loopholes in the law to exploit (as if the regular law wasn't enough to their advantage).
It says that you can take a captive woman as a wife. When it says shave her head and pare her nails I would think this would be a cleanliness thing but it could also have been to try and keep her from committing suicide or even homicide. Can't say for certain. But anyway, the man was allowed to have sex with her after only a month after his people killed her parents. But you weren't allowed to sell her, assuming you had done all the steps because that means you've had sex with her. So this to me says that as long as you don't have sex with a woman you could sell her.
Why am I pointing this out?
Because I don't want anyone to think that this is somehow righteous, just, fair, or anything of that nature. It was completely unfair to women. It wasn't really that much better than regular slavery. It was just your father selling you instead of a stranger. And this system, produced women that no one wanted to pay for and so they became prostitutes. And if they did have a family to shame then it was possible that their family might murder them for it, unless they made it to concubine status... or became someone's wife. It was all about property and ownership. It wasn't about love, affection, attraction, seduction, romance, etc. It was about men having control and being able to mark their territory and murder anyone who dared to take what belonged to them. What if the husband didn't love his wife and she found a man who did love her? She should never be happy? She doesn't deserve happiness? Black Lives Matter. Women's lives matter too. I've had a wife cheat on me. But why would I want to kill the mother of my children just to keep her from being happy with some other guy? She moved on. I moved on too. No one had to die. And if I wanted her dead there would be something wrong with ME, not her. If you are that jealous, that you want your ex to die rather than see them be happy with someone else, maybe YOU are the one who is evil and should be executed. Not them.
Women are not and should never be seen as the property of men. THAT is immoral. Not having sex with people outside of marriage (legal designation of property). Slavery is immoral. Anyone telling you that you can own slaves of other nations and mistreat them as long as you don't do it to your own people? That person is immoral and should have no moral authority or credibility. Don't give me that "ancient times" stuff either. It wasn't okay then just like it isn't okay now.
Leviticus 25:44-46 ESV
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.
Exodus 21:7-11 ESV
“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.