If I'm interpreting your question right, then I believe your entire premise is wrong. It seems that you're implying that men are solely interested in pleasure and entertainment, which is an incorrect assumption both historically and currently.

Obviously, sex has always been popular among people, but humans have never had a lack of sources of entertainment beyond sex and drinking. Hunting, war, art, and science are just a few of the things humans developed to entertain themselves.

In addition, restrictions on "sins" such as sex and alcohol vary widely by culture. Some religions which are sometimes considered "male-dominated" don't restrict alcohol, and even use it as a critical part of their religious practice (ie Catholicism). As far as sex being taboo, there are a lot of explanations for why it has been restricted.

From a biological perspective, there are a number of reasons that human sexuality is the way it is. As outlined here, jealousy, mate-guarding, and pair-bonding evolved in humans due to how long human babies needed to be cared for. Offspring had the best chance of survival when both parents were involved. Additionally, the male would want to be around his mate to ensure that the child she carried was his.

From a western perspective, society is hugely influenced by Judeo-Christian law, ie the Law of Moses, which explicitly states: "You shall not commit adultery," (Exodus 20:14) and "You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife," (Exodus 20:17). For much of western history, Christianity and its rules have been integrated into laws of various states, whether they were male or female dominated. In these cases, it had nothing to do with entertainment, but was a religious and social construct.

I hope I at least somewhat answered your question, but primarily I hope you understand that humans, particularly men, are not solely interested in sex and alcohol, and never have been.

I don't quite see the connection you're drawing between male-dominated societies and restrictions of pleasures, could you mind elaborating a bit more?

Keep in mind that placing restrictions on sex, sin, or vices, can very much be about control. My comments will focus mainly on how regulating alcohol can be used as a means of controlling, say, the poor or ethnic minorities, because that's my area of research. But please also consider other applications of this concept, for example regulating sexuality could be used to control women.

In 1855, Chicago elected a highly nativist city government and Mayor. The Mayor, named Levi Boone, had very conservative policies and, among other things, resented the growing population of non-"American born" citizens (yes, the irony of this term was lost on nativists). Put bluntly, Boone and his cronies hated German and Irish immigrants in the city.

One of Boone's first accomplishments as Mayor was to start enforcing a defunct law banning the sale of alcohol on the Sabbath. Shortly after that, the city enacted a new law which raised the price of a liquor license (necessary to legally operate a saloon) from $50 a year to $300 every 3 months.

Why these changes? Because at the time the city had 650 saloons and 600 of them were owned by immigrants (mostly German but some Irish as well). Further, German and Irish culture both contained different drinking customs as well as large Catholic elements. German culture in particular often emphasized leisure on Sunday which included drinking a lot of beer. Once these laws were in place, Boone increased the size of the city's police force and began hauling in saloon owners for one of these violations, except that they never seemed to arrest anyone who wasn't an immigrant. Boone was elected in March, 1855, and there was an immigrant-led riot over these policies on April 21.

For a more general example we can look back to the 1830s and 40s when the temperance movement gained its first real traction in the United States. Temperance advocates linked alcohol to rising crime rates, poverty, disease, and other social ills, and were themselves usually groups of middle class women and often led my men. But business and factory owners also tended to join their ranks. Why? Because at that time it was customary to drink all say. All day. Breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and with booze-breaks midmorning and mid-afternoon. Employers hated it first because it really lowered productivity and second because they themselves had to provide the damn rum. So it's easy to see why employers wanted to restrict alcohol consumption, and the middle/upper class bulk of temperance advocates used the issue as a way of enforcing middle class values on the working (and drinking) poor.

In short, then, regulating sex or vice isn't just a question of whether or not the literal lawmakers enjoy those things, but can often get caught up in the larger contentions that have existed historically (and continue to exist) between class, gender, religion, nationality, race, etc.

While others have already commented on the flaws in your question in general, I'd like to point out that in history, there was actually a sexist dimension to alcohol. In fact, in Rome, a woman could be executed for drinking alcohol at one point, and women drinking were considered to be promiscuous and thus the activity was severely frowned upon. Men were expected to, when drinking, engage in sexual escapades, but that was considered horrendous for women. Throughout European history, in fact, the moral panic over drinking was often over the possibility of women drinking it and them potentially becoming promiscuous. If anyone's interested in learning more, I'd suggest Rod Phillips' Alcohol, A History.

I would posit that, as sex, drugs and rock & roll are things that many people enjoy, those who act as gatekeepers of those vices are powerful indeed.

If you believe that sex, drinking and generally having fun are going to damn you to hellfire for eternity, you'll put a lot of stock in the word of the person who says they can save you from it. Confession of sins is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Letting people break the rules during the week so that they can come in on Sunday and be cleansed of their sins is a pretty great racket.

So really, the question of "why are there so many rules against sex, nudity, etc" has nothing whatsoever to do with society and religion being male dominated. Those rules are in place because they are effective at generating positive results for the rulers. Those positive results are not necessarily a society free from sin, but rather a society that is under control.