European monarchs tend to be related to each other. It was seen as advantageous at the time to marry off children to those of royal families in other countries. This had consequences, some bad, some good.
One bad consequence was the spread of the genetic disease hemophilia across the continent. A granddaughter of Queen Victoria gave her Russian son Alexei the disease, possibly changing the course of world history. A good consequence, as reported in a new paper published in the American Economic Journal, was that intermarriage between royal families seemed to decrease the number of wars. The closer the relation between the monarchs, the less likely they were to go to war.
Family matters
Seth G. Benzell and Kevin Cooke
The authors considered data on European monarchs and the wars they fought between 1495 and 1918. By combining this information with historical records of conflict, they were able to determine the relationship between how closely related national rulers were and their likelihood of going to war.
In a development that won't be surprising to fans of Game of Thrones, they demonstrated that countries ruled by individuals with family ties were much less likely to be at war with one another. The effect wasn't minor either; a pair of rulers with married children were 9.5 percent more likely to go to war with one another if that marital relationship dissolved.
The most important factor for determining how likely a "dyad" (monarchy pair) would go to war was their closeness on the family tree. The closer the relation, the less likely the war. However, more distant relations increased the likelihood of war, as did the death of a mutual relative.
As shown in the above chart, the number of wars fought in Europe (red dots) went down as the interconnections of the monarchs increased (blue dots). These connections are at their nadir before the Thirty Years' War and reach new heights during the 19th century, a time of relative peace. During that time, an alliance explicitly deemed a fraternity of emperors existed to keep the peace. Would such a thing have been possible if the rulers were less closely related?
There is a noticeable objection. Right before World War I broke out, the number of interconnections was still increasing. However, the authors are suggesting that the closeness of rulers is lowering the chances of war, not guaranteeing against it. Indeed, many rulers used royal marriage to try to make former foes less likely to fight them, with varying degrees of success. Thus, the benefit of the network of thrones is that there were so few wars in the years leading up to WWI.
WWI started after Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated. Why? Study co-author Dr. Seth G. Benzell explained in an email to Big Think:
"Ferdinand's assassination wasn't just a convenient Casus Belli. Rather, it was the Archduke's special place in international politics — as a backup Austrian Emperor, personal friend of Kaiser Wilhelm II (himself a cousin of Tsar Nicholas and King George V) and moderate regarding the cause of Balkan nationalism — that made his removal from the international system so important. He utilized his networks to be a powerful force for peace and de-escalation at the most important nexus of the European system."
On the whole, the authors suggest that 45 percent of the decline in the frequency of wars in 19th century Europe can be attributed to this network of thrones.
Keep it in the family
The authors suggest that royal interconnections increased the rewards of peace, making diplomatic solutions to conflict more appealing. They also propose that royal marriages could lead to increased trade between two countries, reducing the likelihood of war.
Relationships aren't the whole story, of course. While nearly half of the decline in wars can be attributed to the network of thrones, there were other elements at play. As Dr. Benzell explained, other important factors included explicit attempts by European leaders to maintain a balance of power, an awareness of the need for states to work together against separatists, and refocusing military resources towards colonial ventures.
What meaning does this have now that monarchs don't do much?
As can be seen in these maps, marriages were important parts of international diplomacy in Early Modern Europe. The connections of the Protestant (England, Germany, and Bohemia) and Catholic (Spain, Italy, France, and Austria) worlds allowed leaders to call upon kin and allies during wartime.
Today, royal weddings are mostly fodder for tabloids. European monarchs don't really do anything. There are probably more important reasons why the UK and Greece haven't gone to war lately than the fact that Queen Elizabeth II married a Greek noble.
Dr. Benzell suggests that the takeaway is a reminder that leaders are people too:
"The most important lesson is that the individual identities of leaders matter. So often international relations 'realists' take the hard-line view that it is power, strategy, and interests that are the only important factors in international politics. The world is a big game of Risk or Diplomacy, with every country acting optimally given it's resources and objective 'victory conditions.' But what this research emphasizes is that leaders are people with families, and many of them care about their families more than national strategic imperatives! Diplomats ignore the personal interests and desires and friendships and dalliances of leaders at their peril."
Remarkable variation
Wedding ring throwing a heart-shaped shadow on the pages of a dictionary.
Credit: Roger McLassus, CC BY-SA 3.0
Europeans are falling out of love with marriage. Back in 1965, the crude marriage rate in the 27 countries now constituting the EU was 7.8 (per 1,000 persons per year). By 2017, that figure had almost halved, to 4.4. Over the same period, the crude divorce rate more than doubled, from 0.8 to 2.
Still, that means that in 2017, 3.8 million Europeans got married. Tied the knot. Put a ring on it. Which brings us to the question answered by this map: on which finger? The ring finger, of course. But on which hand? In the U.S., the consensus is: on the left. However, as this map shows, there is a remarkable variation in ring-wearing traditions across Europe.
According to this map, Europe is fairly evenly divided between countries where the wedding ring is worn on the left (in green), and those where the matrimonial band is worn on the right (in red).
Major left-wearing countries are the U.K., France, and Italy.
- Left-hand wedding rings are also de rigueur across the Nordics (Iceland, Sweden, Finland, Estonia),
- in Central Europe (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Moldova),
- in the north-western Balkans (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia)
- and in a few other countries (Ireland, Portugal, Turkey, Switzerland, Kazakhstan).
Russia, Germany, Poland, and Ukraine are the largest right-wearing countries.
- There's also a smattering of similarly minded countries in the west (Belgium, Denmark, Norway),
- a corridor or right-wearers stretching from Germany to Cyprus (via Austria, Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria, North Macedonia and Greece),
- and a few former Soviet states continuing their alignment with Mother Russia (Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus and Georgia).
Finally, Spain and the Netherlands have no uniform tradition, with left-wearers and right-wearers according to region or religion.
The vein of love
A map of wedding ring-wearing traditions in Europe.
Credit: Reddit/MapPorn
Before we examine the difference, let's pause a while to contemplate a phenomenon so uniform–the wedding ring goes on the finger next to the pinkie–that we've even named the digit after it.
Left, right, and center, you'll read that wearing a ring as a visible sign of the wearer's married status is a tradition that dates back to ancient Egypt. Not so, saysEgyptologist Dr. Flora Anthony: "Wedding rings were not an ancient Egyptian tradition. We actually have no evidence of any ceremony, ritual, or artifact related to marriage from ancient Egypt. The lack of evidence is intriguing."
The oft-repeated (but undocumented) story is that the Egyptians believed a 'vein of love connected the pinkie's neighbor straight to the heart – a belief that was taken over by the Greeks and Romans (who called it the vena amoris). That would explain the tradition of wearing the ring on the 'ring finger'. (1)
That story, or at least the Egyptian part of it, is a myth, Dr. Anthony contends. It is likely that it merely reflects the desire to find an ancient origin for a tradition that is considered so primal. In the words of H.L. Mencken, the story is "neat, plausible, and wrong."
Dr. Anthony does suggest a possible, albeit more tentative link: "The concept of the orobouros is from ancient Egypt. It's a snake that eats its tail and is thus ring-shaped. As a concept, it relates to eternity. So you could say that the circle or the ring shape does carry notions of eternity, even in ancient Egypt."
If you go back far enough, tradition becomes less… traditional. The ring finger wasn't uniformly used for wearing the wedding ring. Some early Celtic peoples wore their wedding ring on the middle finger, while in 17th-century England it was not uncommon to wear it on the thumb.
Also non-traditional: men wearing wedding rings. In many cultures, only women wore wedding rings. In Germany, for example, the custom for both parties each to wear a ring only became general in the second half of the 19th century. Male wedding rings took off in the UK and other English-speaking countries only during (and because of) the First and Second World Wars. The men away on military duty started wearing rings to remind them of their wife at home.
So, even as weddings themselves are on a slow decline, the wearing of wedding rings has become a standardised aspect of the married state. Except for that difference between the left and right hand.
That difference is more difficult to explain, apparently quite resistant to standardisation and, as evidenced by the reaction generated by this map, also more subtle than the various shadings it proposes.
Closer to the heart
Mr and Mrs Guillemet, a 19th-century Parisian couple, wearing their wedding rings on the left hand, as is still the custom in France.
Credit: Edouard Manet: 'Dans la serre' (1878-9) – Public Domain
Why wear the wedding ring left or right? The difference seems to be merely based on precedent – although some arguments can be found for either option.
- Wearing the ring on the left means it's closer to the heart. Also, this has slight advantages in terms of safety and convenience, if the wearer belongs to the right-handed majority.
- Wearing the ring on the right is relevant because it's the side you shake hands with, so people will be able to tell whether you're married. Also, the right hand is the more important hand, because it's the one you swear with.
In some European traditions, including many Orthodox ones, the wedding ring is worn on the left hand before marriage, then transferred to the right hand during the ceremony. In Turkey, it's generally the other way around.
In others, a relatively plain engagement ring is worn on one hand before marriage, replaced by a more ornate wedding ring on the other hand after marriage. However, in the U.K. (and possibly elsewhere), some people 'stack' the rings, wearing the engagement ring over the wedding ring, both on the left ring finger.
As for the mixed countries: in Spain, the difference is regional, while in the Netherlands it is religious.
- In Spain, wedding rings are generally worn on the right, except in Catalonia and adjacent regions, such as Valencia and the Balearic Islands.
- In the Netherlands, Protestants wear their wedding ring on the right, while Catholics wear it on their left. However, engaged Protestants would have a ring on the left hand, moving it to the right when marrying. Prompting one commenter on Reddit to exasperate: "Then how do you tell an engaged Protestant from a married Catholic? Holy hell. The taste?"
A few other countries should have been shaded as well, other commenters pointed out, at least Austria, Belgium, and Bosnia.
- While many Belgian married couples wear their ring on the left, in some regions (including Antwerp and Brabant provinces) it's worn on the right. In yet parts of the country, the custom varies from town to town.
- Contrary to the rest of Austria, in the state of Tyrol, engagement rings are worn on the right, wedding rings on the left.
Map found here at MapPorn on Reddit.
Strange Maps #1061
Got a strange map? Let me know at strangemaps@gmail.com.
(1) Curiously, the ring finger is known as the 'unnamed' one in languages as diverse as Sanskrit (anamika), Chinese (wúmíng zhǐ), Finnish (nimetön sormi) and Russian (bezimyanniy palets), which may refer to ancient beliefs that it is a magical finger. However, the name 'ring finger' goes back at least until the Romans (digitus annularis). In German, because of its association with golden wedding bands, it is also called Goldfinger.
- Depending on who you ask, monogamy is either essential to a successful marriage or it is unrealistic and sets couples up for failure.
- In this video, biological anthropologist Helen Fisher, psychologist Chris Ryan, former Ashley Madison CEO Noel Biderman, and psychotherapist Esther Perel discuss the science and culture of monogamy, the role it plays in making or breaking relationships, and whether or not humans evolved to have one partner at a time.
- "The bottom line is, for millions of years, there were some reproductive payoffs not only to forming a pair bond but also to adultery," says Fisher, "leaving each one of us with a tremendous drive to fall in love and pair up, but also some susceptibility to cheating on the side."
New research suggests one-third of Americans in monogamous relationships fantasize about being in a sexually open relationship. Of that one-third, most want to act out their desire. Someday, at least.
If you search Google for "open relationships" — or polyamory, polyfidelity, monogamish, etc. — you'll find no shortage of articles describing how unconventional relationship styles are becoming increasingly popular. That seems true, if measured by Google searches.
A 2016 study found that searches related to polyamory and open relationships rose significantly from 2006 to 2015. Other data on consensual non-monogamous relationships (CNMRs) — which include open relationships, polyamory and cuckolding — show:
- An estimated 4 to 5 percent of Americans are in a CNMR.
- More than 20 percent of Americans have tried some kind of CNMR in their lifetime.
- Only half of millennials said they wanted a "completely monogamous" relationship, according to a 2016 YouGov study.
Consensual non-monogamy fantasies
For the new study, published in Archives of Sexual Behavior, researchers asked 822 people in monogamous relationships to:
- Describe their favorite sexual fantasy, defined as "mental images you have while you are awake that you find to be sexually arousing or erotic."
- Select which themes apply to that fantasy, such as having sex with multiple people at the same time, experimenting with taboos, or engaging in a sexually open relationship.
- Answer whether they intended to carry out these fantasies, and discuss them with their partner.
- Complete assessments on relationship satisfaction, erotophilia and personality, as measured by the Big Five Personality inventory.
The results showed that 32.6 percent of participants said being part of a sexually open relationship was "part of their favorite sexual fantasy of all time." More surprising is that, of that one-third, 80 percent said they want to act on this fantasy in the future.
Pretzelpaws via Wikipedia Commons
"The present research confirms the important distinction between sexual fantasy and sexual desire in that not everyone wanted to act on their favorite sexual fantasy of all time," study author Justin J. Lehmiller told PsyPost. "This suggests that fantasies may serve different functions for different people."
Even though most participants said they want to act out their fantasy in the future, far fewer reported acting out sexual fantasies in the past. Other findings included:
- Men were more likely to fantasize about CNMRs.
- So were people who scored high in erotophilia and sociosexual orientation.
- The psychological predictors of fantasizing about CNMRs differed from predictors about infidelity fantasies.
Do open relationships work?
A 2019 study from psychologists at the University of Rochester suggests it is possible, but especially when both partners practice a trio of behaviors: consent, communication, and comfort — or, the Triple-C Model.
What encourages us to seek out potential partners? What interactions encourage us to keep dating, despite the possibility of being rejected? The sexual behavioral system of humans has evolved over millennia and has been the topic of many scientific studies over the years. The concept of dating and pursuing romantic partners has been a curiosity to everyone, it seems, with lists like this one from Mental Floss detailing what dating was like throughout the centuries.
Ultimately, romantic "success" depends on our ability to target the right potential partner whom we not only find attractive but who is also attracted to us. Fear of rejection, self-doubt, and anxiety are just some of the obstacles humans need to overcome to make a meaningful, romantic connection with another person.
Being in a frisky mood improves your chances with potential romantic partners
The right mood could land you the right date, according to a new study.
Credit: BlueSkyImage on Shutterstock
According to a 2020 study by a group of psychologists at the University of Rochester (and the Israeli-based Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya), humans see possible romantic partners as a lot more attractive if they go into the interaction with a "sexy mindset."
Harry Reis, professor of psychology and the Dean's Professor in Arts, Sciences & Engineering at Rochester, and Gurit Birnbaum, a social psychologist and associate professor of psychology at the IDC (Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya) have dedicated decades of their lives to studying the intricate dynamics of sexual attraction and human sexual behavior.
In a previous study, the pair discovered that when people feel greater certainty about a romantic partner's interest, they put more effort into seeing that person again. Additionally, this study found people will rate the possible partner as more "sexually attractive" if they knew the person was interested in seeing them again.
For this project, Reis and Birnbaum, along with their team, examined what would happen if a person's sexual system is activated by exposing them to brief sexual cues that induced a thought process that included the potential for sex or heightened attraction.
Across three separate studies, the team discovered that this sexual activation helps people initiate relationships by inducing them to project their desires onto prospective partners.
Study one: Immediacy
In the first study, 112 heterosexual participants (between the ages of 20-32) who were not in a romantic relationship were randomly paired with an unacquainted participant of the opposite sex. Participants introduced themselves to each other (speaking about their hobbies, positive traits, career plans, etc.), all while being recorded.
The team then coded the recorded interactions and searched for nonverbal expressions of immediacy (such as close proximity, frequent eye contact, smiles, etc.) that could indicate interest in starting a romantic relationship.
In the study, the team determined that the participants exposed to a sexual stimulus before the meeting (versus those exposed to a neutral stimulus) exhibited more immediacy behaviors towards their potential partners and also perceived the partners as more attractive and/or more interested in them.
Study two: Interest
In the second study, 150 heterosexual participants (between the ages of 19-30) who were not in a romantic relationship served as a control for the potential partner's attractiveness and reactions. All participants in study two watched the same pre-recorded video introduction of a potential partner of the opposite sex. They then introduced themselves to the partner while being filmed themselves.
The researchers found that the activation of the sexual system led to participants viewing the potential partner as more attractive as well as more interested in them.
Study three: How it all ties together
In the third and final study, the team investigated whether a partner's romantic interest could explain why sexual activation impacts how we view other people's romantic interest in ourselves.
In this study, 120 single heterosexual participants (between the ages of 21-31) interacted online with another participant who was actually an attractive opposite-sex member of the research team. This was a casual "get-to-know-you" kind of interaction. The participants rated their romantic interest in the other person as well as that person's attractiveness and interest in them.
Again, the team found that sexual activation increased a person's romantic interest in the other person, which, in turn, predicted that the other person would then be more interested in a romantic partnership as well.
The takeaway: Positive, romantic thoughts could produce positive, romantic outcomes.
The basis of this multi-study theory is simple: Having active sexual thoughts arouses romantic interest in a prospective partner and often leads to an optimistic outlook on dating.
"Sexual feelings do more than just motivate us to seek out partners. It also leads us to project our feelings onto the other person," said Reis to Eurekalert.
Reis goes on to explain, "...the sexual feelings need not come from the other person; they can be aroused in any number of ways that have nothing to do with the other person."
