I've already read it - I think I've read all the Mary Renault books she was one of my favorites. I'm following where you've got up to and interst should be given to the relationship between Alexis and his father (and also his father's past history 
) My comment was a generalisation that although there are relationships between the sexes, we don't get the unimpeachable evidence of a character we would recognise as "homosexual" / Gay in our modern context.
I’m going to be
boring, boring, boring again, and ask that we get a little background behind us, prior to progressing further.
I recommend “The Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization,” published by Oxford University Press. It covers everything you ever wanted to know about the classical world in readily understandable (though, sometimes challenging) laymen’s language.
Under the main heading of “Homosexuality,” there are the following sub-headings:
* Deviance & Toleration
* “Greek Love”
* Lesbianism
* Origins & Causes
* Pederasty
* Periodization
Let’s begin with the main text re “Homosexuality” proper (or should that be improper?!):
No Greek or Latin word corresponds to the modern term “homosexuality,” and ancient Mediterranean societies did not in practice treat homosexuality as a socially operative category of personal or public life. Sexual relations between persons of the same sex certainly did occur (they are widely attested in ancient sources), but they were not systematically distinguished or conceptualised as such, much less were they thought to represent a single, homogeneous phenomenon in contradistinction to sexual relations between persons of different sexes. That is because the ancients did not classify kinds of sexual desire or behaviour according to the sameness or difference of the sexes of the persons who engaged in the sexual act; rather, they evaluated sexual acts according to the degree to which such acts either violated or conformed to norms of conduct deemed appropriate to individual sexual actors by reason of their gender, age, and social status. It is therefore impossible to speak in general terms about ancient attitudes to “homosexuality,” or about the degree of its acceptance or toleration by particular communities, because any such statement would, in effect, lump together various behaviours which the ancients themselves kept rigorously distinct and to which they attach radically divergent meanings and values. (Exactly the same things could be said, of course, and with equal justification, about “heterosexuality”)
It is not illegitimate to employ modern sexual terms and concepts when interrogating the ancient record, but particular caution must be exercised in order not to import modern, western sexual categories and ideologies into the interpretation of the ancient evidence. Hence, students of classical antiquity need to be clear about when they intend the term “homosexual” descriptively – i.e. to denote nothing more than same-sex sexual relations – and when they intend it substantively or normatively – i.e. to denominate a discrete kind of sexual psychology or behaviour, a positive species of sexual being, or a basic component of “human sexuality.”
The application of “homosexuality” (and “heterosexuality”) in a substantive or normative sense to sexual expression in classical antiquity is not advised.Greek and Roman men (whose sexual subjectivity receives vastly greater attention in the extant sources than does women’s) generally understood sex to be defined in terms of sexual penetration and phallic pleasure, whether the sexual partners were two males, two females, or one male and one female. The physical act of sex itself required, in their eyes, a polarization of the sexual partners into the categories of penetrator and penetrated as well as a corresponding polarization of sexual roles into “active” and “passive.” The roles in turn were correlated with superordinate and subordinate social status, with masculine and feminine gender styles, and (in the case of males, at least) with adulthood and adolescence. Phallic insertion functioned as a marker of male precedence; it also expressed social domination and seniority. The isomorphism of sexual, social, gender, and age roles made the distinction between “activity” and “passivity” paramount for categorizing sexual acts and actors of either gender; the distinction between homosexual and heterosexual contacts could still be invoked for certain purposes (e.g. Ov. Ars am. 2. 682-4; Achilles Tatius 2. 33-8), but it remained of comparatively minor taxonomic and ethical significance.
Any sexual relation that involved the penetration of a social inferior (whether inferior in age, gender, or status) qualified as sexually normal for a male, irrespective of the penetrated person’s anatomical sex, whereas to be sexually penetrated was always potentially shaming, especially for a free male of citizen status (e.g. Tac. Ann. II. 36). Roman custom accordingly placed the sons or Roman citizens off limits to men. In Classical Athens, by contrast, free boys could be openly courted, but a series of elaborate protocols served to shield them from the shame associated with bodily penetration, thereby enabling them to gratify their male suitors without compromising their future status as adult men.
