I think sexual behavior is much more fluid than sexual orientation. While I think sexual orientation can change for some people, I think it’s much more uncommon for someone to switch to or develop another orientation than it is for someone to simply engage in sexual activities that don’t necessarily adhere to their natural predilections. Lou Reed, I would say, was most likely never attracted to men, generally speaking. He was an opportunist and used sexuality to carve out a provocative public persona for the sake of his career. Some are unaware of their sexual orientation or struggle to come to terms with it before eventually adjusting their behavior to become more (or less, depending on circumstances) congruent with their natural desires. Others may value sexual gratification over sexual attraction to a particular type of person at a given time, ignoring a basic lack of interest in another’s physicality and appearance for the sake of pleasure-seeking. In terms of explanations for causes of sexual orientation, the genetic and biological components get to the heart of what Rachel is referring to when she describes it as an immutable trait, but the more varied way in which genes are expressed and especially all the different types of behavior one can display either due to or in spite of one’s genetics and biology can lead someone like Rick Santorum to the conclusion that being gay could be a choice. By all accounts, and keeping in mind that some people naturally do not fall within the hetero- and homosexual binary, sexual orientation itself is almost certainly not a choice. Fluid or not (and again, I would argue most often not, particularly in males), human beings typically don’t make conscious decisions to be attracted to one another, as the orientation-as-a-choice framing would imply.