Introduction
1. What is the essentialist position with regard to sexual orientation, and how does this relate to the difference between Aristophanes and Paul?

2. What are the consequences of essentialism for attitudes towards homosexuals? (Summerize both the survey and the experimental evidence). Are these logically justified?

3. Why is research into the causes of homosexuality invariably a political enterprise? What is the inevitable implication of thinking about the "cause of homosexuality"?

4. What do most homosexuals believe to be the reason they are homosexual? Are there any differences in the way gay men and lesbians answer this question?

5. Who was Magnus Hirschfeld?

6. Where are scientists "supposed" to live, and why does LeVay seem to question this?

Chapter Two
1. What does race, the electromagnetic spectrum and intertidal zones all have to do with sexual orientation?

2. Explain the four basic categories that have been used to analyze sexual orientation.

3. Describe the "Kinsey Scale". How does data generated by this scale answer the question about the discreteness of the sexual orientation category? How does this compare with data from Freund's Plethysmographic studies? Is there a gender difference in the answer to this question?

4. Summarize data on the short and long term stability of sexual orientation for men and women.. When there are changes, in what direction are they, usually.

5. Why has the existence of bisexuality often been used to argue against biological explanation for sexual orientation? What is LeVay's response?

6. Explain LeVay's distinction between strong and weak social constructionism.. Why does he view the former, but not the latter, as incompatible with biological science?

7. Explain the three patterns of homosexual relationships identified by LeVay. Which pattern is most common today? Which pattern sheds light on the stability of sexual orientation?

8. Why is it that so many people assumed for so long that 10% of the population was gay? Explain LeVay's point that a proper understanding of Kinsey's prevalence estimate is fairly close to contemporary estimates.