Well, that's your right. But also, in my opinion, your private and personal business that doesn't really need to intrude on this board.
Without wanting to draw any actual comparison between myself and a writer whose shoes I would not have been fit to lace, I'll point out that allusion has been made once or twice, in connection with my posts, to some passages in James Joyce. The notorious fifteenth chapter of "Ulysses", in particular, touches on several of the sort of themes that appear to be giving rise to misinterpretation here.
There cannot be the least doubt that the central and even the sole essential object of sexual desire throughout the whole of Joyce's novel is a woman: the magnificent Molly Bloom, whose monologue of love and infidelity ends the whole book. The moving patterns of deflected and distorted libido that Leopold Bloom's frustrated and tormented love for his wife Molly sets in motion, however, do, in this sixteenth chapter, make transvestism, fantasies of anal rape by Molly's lover, and other prima facie strongly homosexual activities a central part of the action. Only an idiot, however, would seriously claim that Leopold Bloom is a homosexual (he is one of the great lovers of women in literary history).
If you happen to be an American, the whole point at issue here was actually pretty well clarified by one of your judges, Judge John M. Woolsey, as long ago as 1933, when the U.S. Customs Authority tried to have "Ulysses" banned from the United States as a pornographic publication. Woolsey concluded that "while in many places the effect of the book on the reader is undoubtedly somewhat emetic, nowhere does it tend to be aphrodisiac."
Actually, I have my doubts about whether Judge Woolsey had the right to generalize like that. The fifteenth and other chapters of "Ulysses" probably HAVE been used as an aphrodisiac over the years by many readers. But he was right, I think, as far as Joyce's INTENTION was concerned. Joyce TRIED, at least, to present in this book material that might, in itself, be apt to establish a very intimate, sexual relation between the writer and the person reading it in a way that DIDN'T establish any such relation, that deliberately avoided establishing it.
I assure you I've tried to do the same, and to avoid the very same thing, in my posts. I don't want anybody to be "gay" for me or for what I write, just to find it either "emetic", or amusing, or intellectually interesting.
Believe me, if alluding here in WORDS to my masochistic-voyeuristic-homosexual relationship to RavRav and her boyfriend were in fact one and the same thing with LIVING OUT this relationship, you would all definitely know and notice that, and the atmosphere generated by my posts would definitely be a very different one. And indeed it's theoretically conceivable that one of the cold, cruel, destructive commands I might fantasize about the beautiful dominatrix RavRav giving me would be: "Go on Crackyhouse and tell everybody exactly what you've been begging me to do to you; let everybody see and mock your shame."
But it would never ever enter my head to do such a thing. It would be an utterly tasteless misuse of this place, and I'd feel a shame about doing such a thing a hundred times deeper and more serious than the fantasized and secretly pleasurable shame of any masochistic games I might play.
I can't help feeling that your talk about being "gay" for people and finding other people "dreamy" amounts to moving some way, at least, in the direction of such a misuse, and of incurring such a shame. As I understand it, at least, expression of that kind of unreflected, all-too-real and all-too-genuinely-expectant desire even for Cracky, or for one of her avatars such as Lia or RavRav, is inappropriate here. This is not about desire, or its fulfilment. It's about something else.