What if, throughout history, women hadn't been used as captives in exchange for peace with rival nation-states?

Here is the first episode in a rather good Russian series of many episodes about the relations between the Russians and the Mongolian Golden Horde in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcO65BfO1SU It's in Russian, for Russians, and there are no subtitles. I just know a bit of Russian, but that's sufficient to follow the action pretty well. The Russians and the Mongols got along rather well, of course. So well, that some people might argue that the Russian Empire was, and is, simply an extension of the Mongol Empire. What was the basis of this good relationship between these two rival empires? How did they manage to integrate their skills, religions, ambitions and world views so well, and live in a highly productive and peaceful relationship for centuries? This Russian series provides a rather interesting and innovative perspective on this question. Apparently, the primary basis for trade, mutual self-interest and common ground between these distinct, rival cultures was quite simple, and quite specific. They just loved raping each other's women! While there's no nudity or graphic sexuality represented, it's quite clear what's going on. Both the Mongol and Russian women are running in terror from the men in the opposite culture, and the men are having a terrific time running them down, kidnapping them, and having their way with them. Sometimes these are organized actions by the leaders of both cultures, formally trading and exchanging their women, and sometimes it's just a spur of the moment abduction by private individuals, on their own initiative. In either case, these actions help to keep everyone very busy indeed, far too busy to make war. "Make love, not war!" appears to have have been, quite literally, the underlying motto of the relationship between the Russians and the Mongols. Now, it seems to me, that this brings up a rather broader question, of the extent to which this principle has applied throughout human history. King Solomon, of Israel, had 700 wives, and 300 concubines. Presumably, he didn't really need this many simply to do his housekeeping. These were, effectively, female hostages used to seal peace between Israel and the various rival, Arab tribes in the region. In Medieval Europe, it was standard procedure to use arranged marriages of Nobles as a means of establishing strong relationships between rival nation states. Effectively, women throughout history have been used, and have acquiesced to being used, as a means of establishing, through their own submission to broader social interests, better relations between rivals. War and conflicts are eased by the passive kindness of women to all and sundry. And, indeed, when women fail to perform this function, and become active participants in conflicts, the opposite pattern occurs. Joan of Arc and Boadicea show the power and danger socially when women choose to fight. Conflicts become massively escalated. More recently, we see this pattern in the Soviet resistance to the Nazis, and the Vietnamese resistance to the Americans. Because women chose to fight, the invader was destroyed, and integration and conquest failed miserably. So, what if historically, women had not acquiesced to serve the role as captives in exchanges for peace? Thoughts?