"If men on the battle field or in ships can control their urges why then can’t they do so in a relationship?"

Perhaps you missed the last couple of hundred years somehow? It's all there in the histories, men DON"T "control" their instincts in those situations, nor in any other where they are isolated from the females.
Haven't you noticed the "Rape in War" publicity recently? Soldiers/clergy/sailors have been raping each other for centuries, and indulging in sexual-practices voluntarily, but they don't consider it homosexual, it's considered a necessary release of tension. Why else do armies usually organise sexual services for their troops, from Roman times on? Look at what goes on in gaol, if you can stomach it.It's brutal, yet they again don't consider it homosexual, and it's not.

That because you no longer have the urge to have sex you’re, what not a man/male?
2. That the worth of a wife/partner is dependent on sexual opportunities provided. In that case a concubine is a better option.

Any drive can die, and men know this, many even enjoy being released from that drive, though I doubt we'd ever admit as much to a woman, the drive may be down but the ego's still there, lol. That should tell you you're actually right on that point, our masculinity IS deeply rooted in our sex-drive, if you'll pardon the pun.
Do you think for one moment that if concubinage was socially acceptable that men wouldn't take it, gleefully?
"Anthropologically The home maker issue can be shown as culturally learned."
And with words you can "show" just about anything, but I prefer the proof of history, every human culture at every time has had women as the keeper of the hearth, whole religions have been founded on that.

david f:"Feminism is often merely an activity to attain equality in employment and other areas."

That was the case historically. As equality is now a fact, with individual attainments being far more important a factor than gender for professional employment particularly, I'd suggest that nowadays feminism has become a "ticket to ride" for those too lazy to do the hard yards.
It is de rigeur in any profession to express one's solidarity with feminist principles and one of the quickest ways for someone with little talent to gain lots of kudos is to be virulently feminist.

It is also very easy for anyone wishing to score a feminist point to get space in newspapers and other traditional media, but much more difficult for anyone wishing to offer criticism.

The internet has made that criticism available and isn't it remarkable how much of it there is? Some of it is mere polemic, just as much of feminist literature is, but there is much of substance.

As for the original comparison, I'd suggest a better one would be between "male chest-beating", which is an open challenge to those who seek to dominate one and "female connivance", which is an indirect path to a similar desired outcome - domination over one's rivals.

Back to prostitution: I've never used their services, but I can understand the demand. Personally, I'm not aroused by a partner who's not also, although I'm sure any hooker worth his/her salt would be a very convincing actor in that regard. Maybe I'll give it a go one day.

Maximillion,

You're a legend. Good work.

I see this jump through hoops to warm the missus up and do all the housework business as manipulative tripe. It builds on the theory that sex should be withheld by women from men until their demands are met. I think the same women who say things like this would be offended if their guy demanded some lingerie or porn or athletic positions or outdoor sex in order for her to get a cuddle or a romantic dinner. Why do we always hear female needs must be met BEFORE the mans all the time, never the other way around.

Foxy,

'at what constitutes real
intimacy in a relationship - good communication, mutual
vulnerability, love, and respect."'

You missed out sex. Typical woman!:-) I think you'll find sex is the lubrication for all of the above. To simulate this, shrinks experimented with Extacy to enhance communication between couples quite effectively. In general, people talk too much and bonk too little. If they bonked they would talk more. Physical intamacy can lead to emotional intamacy just as much as the other way around.

Yabby,

'If women want an asexual relationship, why did they get
married in the first place? They could have just stayed good
friends after all. '

I've often wondered about that.

'Give them a good feed and a bit of nookie and they
will do anything for you.

Many women have yet to figure that out.'
I think that wonderful knowledge has been lost in the feminist revolution. Just like giving a woman compliments has great advantages.

examinator,

'The last thing I want is my partner to do me sexual favours..'

How dull. Doing little favours for each other can lead to much fun. If one partner really isn't that interested, how much effort does it really take to get the other off anyway. You could do it while watching TV even.

'YOU have either maturity, marriage, medical or emotional psychological issues. '
Way to make friends. Now imagine if Col had said that... How's the ivory tower going?

Dear Houellebecq,

Col wouldn't be capable of making any comment
without resorting to gutter language.

As for leaving sex out of the equation in intimacy.
On the contrary. My point was that intimacy was not
just about erections and penetration. Wifes who feel
loved as opposed to used are more likely to have a
healthy libido.

By the way, I'm a young, happily married woman, in a
very satisfying relationship.

Are you happily married and in a satisfying relationship?

What a fascinating thread this is. While I'm not surprised by the sexual alienation inherent in comments from some apparently disaffected men, I am a little surprised at both the range of male attitudes about women and sex, and by the vehemence with which some express them.

Frankly, the attitudes expressed by some men here towards their sexual relationships are positively antediluvian. Yes, women can and do manipulate men sexually - but this requires men to participate in the kind of relationship where sex is a commodity, in the same way that men's typically greater economic contributions are. Some blokes here don't seem to realise that the days of man the hunter/breadwinner and woman the gatherer/homemaker are well and truly over in this society.

If nothing else, this thread demonstrates the continuing relevance of positive feminist ideas in negotiating greater equity in relationships between women and men.

There are apparently still plenty of 'cave-men' out there.

Hullo everyone - this is Mrs Pierno. I'm stunned at how many posts there have been - obviously this issue is bigger than socialism and the Queensland election. Just to add another element to the discussion - I am 23 years older than the husband - he's 34 now, I'm 57. He is my third husband. I'm gone - will apply for divorce in a few months' time. I went to university in the late 1960's, early 70's. read Betty Friedan and Germaine Greer. Bettina Arndt was at ANU at the same time I was. I have three adult children. It is with great interest that I read these comments - so many people who know so much! Just for the record: plenty of men want sex with women aged 50 and over and not just the pot-gutted rejects (men I mean). The applicants come in all ages, colours and income brackets. Just thought you'd like to know.