I think part of the problem that I have with labels like "traditional" regarding husbands and wives is that people don't marry for "traditional" reasons anymore. In other words, the expectations our modern society places on marriage are entirely different from previous generations. It seems to me that craving a "traditional" marriage, but maintaining modern expectations of a marriage is a bit like placing new wine in an old wine skin.
Traditionally, people would marry for very pragmatic or dynastic reasons. Why did the man marry the woman from the neighboring farm? Well, it seemed that she understood hard work and she fell within a reasonable range of attractiveness. Why did she marry him? Well, it was social stigma to be a spinster, and he seemed like he would be a hard worker who could provide for a wife and children.
Some traditional marriages (even today) were based on arrangements made by parents and family. The couple would agree to such arrangements because it was how their community functioned.
So, if you marry someone for these very pragmatic reasons, and they do indeed meet these expectations, then you can feel satisfied. There are plenty of "traditional" examples of adultery where people remained in marriages because "he's a good provider", or "she's so good with the children."
You'll notice no mention of "love", or "romance", or "soulmates", or "best friends," or possibly even free-choice.
Now, however, our expectations of marriage are much, much higher. Even in Christian circles people use language like, "I want my husband to be my best friend." Or "I'm looking for my soulmate" (forget the fact that "soulmate" is a platonic idea and not biblical). There is much romanticized language used regarding modern marriages, "You inspire me everyday to be a better person," "You're my hero," "You open up whole new worlds to me." And this doesn't even begin to touch on the sexual expectations that people have of a marriage.
None of these existed in the "traditional" times that people often idealize.
Most of the time, these expectations are impossible to meet. I mean, I'm a pretty awesome person, but I don't think I could be someone's inspiration *every single day.*
A BIBLICAL marriage is NOT a traditional marriage. It never was. If it were TRADITIONAL, then why would Paul have addressed it as an issue with the early church. If the Ephesians were engaging in biblical marriages, they would have needed no teaching on it.
A biblical marriage is actually a RADICAL marriage.
Part of what makes it radical is that our model for "the two becoming one" shifts to Christ and the Church. Previously, men were told to "leave and cleave" regarding their wives. Now they are told to BE LIKE CHRIST. An ancient Hebrew woman was essentially property, first belonging to her father, and then to her husband. Now, she is told she is "as unto the Lord." Her service and submission to her husband are seen and valued by God, regardless of whether she is noticed or appreciated by her husband or the larger society. BOTH roles were elevated.
I'm not sure why people began to associate "traditional" with "biblical." Nor do I understand why people associate particular behaviors with "husbandly leadership" or "wifely submission." If a man is egalitarian and wants his wife's input on everything within the marriage, isn't she engaged with "submission" when she follows his lead? If a wife has a rather fractured background and has issues with control, isn't her husband engaged with "Christly love" by allowing time for the Holy Spirit to work within her instead of aggressively asserting his "authority?"
What's interesting is that "biblical" doesn't really offer a lot of externalized trappings. It offers a philosophical basis for a marriage. People who bang on about "traditional" are often caught up with a lot of externalized behaviors.