This article provocatively and facetiously argues that tradwife culture is kinky. When compared with 24/7 (24 hours a day, 7 days a week) female-slave/male-master (FS/MM) dynamics, they are strikingly alike. While politically and ideologically distinct, both share the cornerstones of power and control. These are the foundations of Bondage/Discipline/Dominance/Submission/Sadomasochism/Masochism (BDSM), positioning tradwives well within the definition of kinksters.
Tradwives (short for “traditional wives”) embrace and publicly promote conservative gender roles, centring identity around old-school marriage, domesticity, obedience to male leadership, childbearing, and homemaking as moral vocation [1][2]. Rooted in nostalgia for pre-feminist ideals, tradwife culture reframes patriarchal hierarchy and alt-right ideals as a freely chosen, religiously fulfilling lifestyle, presenting submission as virtue and resistance to feminist and neoliberal values [3][4][5][6].
A 24/7 FS/MM dynamic is a form of total power exchange (TPE) within the BDSM spectrum in which a female submissive consents to ongoing, full-time obedience to a male dominant partner – a common though not exclusive gender configuration [7][8][9]. These relationships operate through explicit consent, negotiation, contracts, rituals, and symbols that formalise hierarchy, trust, and care [8]. Although erotic in origin, 24/7 arrangements extend beyond sexual activity, integrating discipline, service, and structure into daily life as an intentional and consensual way of living [10][11][12][13][8][14][9].
Sophie Elmhirst described the tradwife lifestyle as “an amped-up, kink version of cottagecore with political and religious overtones” [4]. Conversely, Agree [15] noted that many 24/7 Dominant and Submissive (D/S) relationships model traditional gender roles and 1950s-style marriage. Dancer, Kleinplatz, and Moser [11] identified a kink subcategory explicitly built on religion and traditional marriage.
Domestic routines feature strongly in both identities, materialising devotion and submission through repetitive action and aesthetic order [13][3]. Wedding rings, collars, and domestic spaces function as tangible markers of obedience and belonging [13][8]. In 24/7 FS/MM, collars and rituals express negotiated trust and hierarchy [14], while tradwives display commitment through wedding rings, aprons, spotless kitchens, and homemaking tasks – performative obedience as beauty and moral order [16][6].
Domestic service and ritual create emotional regulation and comfort, the body finding calm through predictability and routine [9]. Domesticity becomes worship; cleaning and kneeling are parallel gestures of devotion. BDSM rituals can create bonding, stress regulation, and endorphin release [17], not unlike the embodied satisfaction found in the tradwife’s “domestic bliss” [16]. Both convert labour into meaning, where care and control merge – domination becomes intertwined with interdependence. The wedding ring and the collar each embody devotion as chosen identity.
Both tradwife culture and 24/7 FS/MM dynamics are built upon hierarchies that eroticise, moralise, and aestheticise submission. In both lifestyles, power and control give predictability and structure. Tradwives promote submissiveness and obedience as moral alignment, often framing patriarchy as divine order that restores meaning in a disordered world [4][6]. 24/7 FS/MM relationships follow different ideologies but share a similar attraction: obedience formalised and eroticised through the submissive’s consensual surrender [10][8][14][14]. Both find stability in relinquishment; the tradwife’s calm after labour parallels the kinkster’s serenity after ritual discipline – each discovering safety within structure [16][8][9].
Subjection to power and control becomes relational rather than oppressive, requiring both dominance and devotion [3][13]. Whether sanctioned through religion or sealed by contract, both subcultures transform gendered obedience into belonging and care.
Tradwives and 24/7 submissives also share a complex relationship with consent. In BDSM, consent is the ethical cornerstone – ongoing, negotiated, and essential for distinguishing health from harm [7][17][18][19][20]. Submissives often describe surrender as empowerment, a paradox found through yielding control [10][19][20].
Tradwives similarly centre explicit consent to hierarchy, using political visibility to advocate male leadership and promote obedience as wholesome and revolutionary [16][4][2]. For tradwives, consent is evangelised – a conscious surrender to the “right” order of things. Both BDSM and tradwife cultures thus depend on consent as legitimising discourse. The submissive’s “yes” sanctifies her lifestyle; the tradwife’s “I choose to submit” sanctifies her marriage. Both aim to transform dominance into care, coupling intentional hierarchy with harmony.
Sykes and Hopner [6] and Proctor [3] note that tradwives use visibility – social media displays of domestic devotion – as moral proof of their lifestyle. Likewise, 24/7 practitioners seek community validation online [21]. In both, visibility authenticates identity. As Butler [22] and Dancer et al. [11] observe, having the agency to surrender and the power to control are co-produced performances. Both embody this paradox: freely choosing constraint as the condition of stability.
These co-produced roles expose a shared cultural logic – that surrender can be rewarding. Both claim obedience as strength, a self-determined alignment with purpose and structure. Within feminist theory, submission remains complex but productive. Meeker, McGill, and Rocco [19] call this “negotiated agency” – autonomy expressed through consensual limitation. Tradwives use consent as conviction, reframing patriarchal authority as moral certainty [4][2], while 24/7 FS/MM participants see surrender as trust and self-knowledge [11]. Butler [22] and Newmahr [13] remind us that power is performative and relational. Both the tradwife and the submissive stabilise their identity through intentional structure. They are not moral opposites but participants in the same affective economy: one ideological, one erotic, both grounded in the desire for order. In a neoliberal world obsessed with autonomy, both find grounding in surrender. As Newmahr [13] suggests, submission can be “edgework” – a dance with limits that transforms constraint into meaning.
A notable variation lies in tradwives’ links to anti-feminist ideology and belief in exclusive male authority [3][4][5][6]. For clarity, this discussion has focused on female submissives, though BDSM includes diverse gender dynamics [7][8][9]. Female submissives can also be feminists; consenting to power exchange still aligns with sex-positive feminism, which holds that sexual freedom is essential to women’s freedom [19].
Conclusion
Describing tradwives as conservative kinksters is not merely provocation but a grounded observation. Both tradwives and 24/7 FS/MM participants ritualise submission, market hierarchy as appealing, and eroticise devotion to create belonging and stability. The tradwife’s advocacy for obedience and the submissive’s display of servitude mirror one another as devotional authenticity. Each claims power through surrender, showing that control can traverse spectrums of femininity. This comparison disrupts binaries of anti-feminist versus feminist, oppressed versus empowered. Submission, when chosen, offers both safety and constraint, freedom and containment. Between the wedding ring and the collar lies a continuum of devotion, rendering the tradwife not an opposite of the 24/7 submissive but her conservative equal – a woman finding purpose, pleasure, and identity through the politics of obedience.
Maire Joy Barron 2025 – mairejoy.com
This article is adapted from an assignment written for post grad studies in sexology.
Reference List
[1] Alldredge, K. L. (2025). [Rev. of Disrupting Notions of a Bible Marriage in an Age of Trad Wives: A Review of Jennifer Bird’s Marriage in the Bible]. Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, 41(2), 147–150. https://doi.org/10.2979/jfs.00064
[2] Scott, K., & Day, L. (2025). TikTok tradwives: Femininity, reproduction, and social media. Gender and Education, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2025.2546050
[3] Proctor, D. (2023). The #Tradwife persona and the rise of radicalised white domesticity. Persona Studies, 8(2), 7–26. https://ojs.deakin.edu.au/index.php/ps/article/download/1645/1512/5738
[4] Love, N. S. (2020). Shield maidens, fashy femmes, and tradwives: Feminism, patriarchy, and right-wing populism. Frontiers in Sociology, 5, 619572. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2020.619572
[5] Smith IV, J. (2018, January 5). Why women have always been essential to white supremacist movements. Mic. https://www.mic.com/articles/187223/why-women-have-always-been-essential-to-white-supremacist-movements
[6] Sykes, S., & Hopner, V. (2024). Tradwives: Right-wing social media influencers. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 53(4), 453–487. https://doi.org/10.1177/08912416241246273
[7] Barker, M. J., & Richards, C. (2013). Bondage and discipline, dominance and submission, and sadomasochism (BDSM)/kink. In Sexuality & gender for mental health professionals: A practical guide (pp. 85–100). SAGE Publications, Limited. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473957817.n6
[8] Ryan, R. (2018). Attachment, emotion regulation, and gender role issues in BDSM relationships: An exploratory analysis (Master’s thesis, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville). ProQuest. https://search.proquest.com/openview/b0c844018b4d94cfeb7c1a82007ead8f/1.pdf
[9] Wuyts, E., De Neef, N., Coppens, V., Fransen, E., Schellens, E., Van der Pol, M., & Morrens, M. (2020). Between pleasure and pain: A pilot study on the biological mechanisms associated with BDSM interactions in dominants and submissives. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 17(4), 784–792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.01.001
[10] Cascalheira, C. J., Thomson, A., & Wignall, L. (2021). ‘A certain evolution’: A phenomenological study of 24/7 BDSM and negotiating consent. Psychology & Sexuality, 13(3), 628–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2021.1901771
[11] Dancer, P. L., Kleinplatz, P. J., & Moser, C. (2006). 24/7 SM slavery. Journal of Homosexuality, 50(2–3), 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v50n02_05
[12] Monteiro Pascoal, P., Cardoso, D., & Henriques, R. (2015). Sexual satisfaction and distress in sexual functioning in a sample of the BDSM community: A comparison study between BDSM and non-BDSM contexts. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 12(4), 1052–1061. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12835
[13] Newmahr, S. (2011). Playing on the edge: Sadomasochism, risk, and intimacy (1st ed.). Indiana University Press. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/curtin/detail.action?docID=670270&pq-origsite=primo
[14] Simula, B. L. (2019). Pleasure, power, and pain: A review of the literature on the experiences of BDSM participants. Sociology Compass, 13(3), e12668. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12668
[15] Agree, L. (2014). The experience of being in a long term, monogamous, heterosexual relationship that regularly incorporates BDSM (Order No. 3635386). Available from ProQuest One Academic. (1615085646). https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/experience-being-long-term-monogamous/docview/1615085646/se-2
[16] Banet-Weiser, S., & Reinis, S. (2025). The rage of tradwives: Affective economies and romanticizing retreat. Feminist Theory, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14647001251371971
[17] De Neef, N., Coppens, V., Huys, W., & Morrens, M. (2019). Bondage-discipline, dominance-submission and sadomasochism (BDSM) from an integrative biopsychosocial perspective: A systematic review. Sexual Medicine, 7(2), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esxm.2019.02.002
[18] Gunning, J. N., Rubinsky, V., Aragón, A., Roldán, M., McMahon, T., & Cooke-Jackson, A. (2023). A preliminary investigation into intersections of sexual communication in bondage, domination, sadomasochism, and disability. Sexuality & Culture, 27(4), 1163–1179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-022-10058-8
[19] Meeker, C., McGill, C. M., & Rocco, T. S. (2020). Navigation of feminist and submissive identity by women in the BDSM community: A structured literature review. Sexuality & Culture, 24(5), 1594–1618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-019-09681-9
[20] Sisson, K. (2007). The cultural formation of S/M: History and analysis. In D. Langdridge & M. Barker (Eds.), Safe, sane and consensual: Contemporary perspectives on sadomasochism (pp. 10–34). Palgrave Macmillan. https://curtin.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/view/delivery/61CUR_INST/12245058350001951
[21] Fay, D., Haddadi, H., Seto, M. C., Wang, H., & Kling, C. (2016). An exploration of fetish social networks and communities. In A. Wierzbicki, U. Brandes, F. Schweitzer, & D. Pedreschi (Eds.), Advances in network science. NetSci-X 2016 (Vol. 9564, pp. 197–208). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28361-6_17
[22] Butler, J. P. (1999). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity (10th anniversary ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203824979