The same failure to attend to context or pragmatics means that passages are often flattened out, treated as straightforward descriptions of behaviour when they have quite other rhetorical goals. It is crafted as a seduction, not a sociology treatise. The weaseling distortion of Athenian ideas can be tracked to the second nomos on voluntary slavery for the sake of self-improvement. While this may pass as a reference to apprentices and disciples, extending the idea to lover-beloved attachments is chicanery. When C. must labour to find hints that support her thesis or torture them out of recalcitrant texts she does not ask why.
Chronology is left vague.
I must be brief about the rest of the book. In Chapter Three, C. pays more attention to context because she wants to discount apparent opposition to male same-sex intercourse in Plato, Xenophon, and Aristotle. The need for a higher birth rate after the loss of so many young people also added pressure. C. does not compare her view that traditional morality was lost with Foucault's interpretation, perhaps because she denies that male-male sexuality is the issue in these texts. Chapter Four includes a section on Sappho, derived from Bruno Gentili.