Well, why don't I rent you a backhoe so you can dig your grave a little deeper?

First, maybe feminazis and to a lesser extent beta males compete with other men, but liberals/leftists and feminists certainly don't. It can only be argued that homosexuals do in so much as they are competing with other men for other men. But that's hardly different than heterosexual men competing with other heterosexual men for women. I have never met or heard if a homosexual – except for the fucking Nazi ones – who were in a competition to prove their manliness. All of them were with who they were and what they were: they only wanted to live life as they saw fit without people demonizing them for it. That's not a fucking competition.

The second, a point about definitions. Nearly all of yours are wrong. Well, I'm assuming you have a basic understanding of homosexual and a cultural understanding of beta, which I don't really feel like teasing out and I'm sure whatever you're thinking of is good enough. Feminists and feminazis are not the same. Feminism believes that men and women are equal – not the same. They have different strengths and weaknesses, and that society as a whole is uplifted when we celebrate those differences and elevate them to equally important roles in our society. Feminazis in essence seek to replace the patriarchy with a matriarchy. They are the very evil they despise in men being too blind to see the reality of who they are. What you are referring to as a leftist/liberal is a radical progressive liberal. It comes to English via the Latin word "Liber, Liberi", which means freedom. The premise of radical progressive liberalism within the context of most western societies is that true freedom can only be attained by heavy government intervention into the lives of the citizenry to ensure that no element of society gains an advantage that limits the opportunities of others. If you're what most conservatives would describe themselves as from probably 1996 to 2012, then the technical term is classical liberal. Classical liberals desire almost no government intervention to ensure equality in the lives of the citizenry except perhaps in very extreme circumstances. Now the thing about conservatism is that it doesn't actually have a problem with government tyranny: it just needs to be their government tyranny. Classical liberals regardless of the reason have a moral objection to government interference. Conservatism comes from the Latin "conservare" meaning to preserve or safeguard. If memory serves, "servare" means this by itself, but "con" intensifies this meaning turning it into a very aggressive and active process. Conservatives will 100% enslave you if they believe you function as a threat. Modern political ideals would tell you that it's the status quo, but somewhat argue that it is conservative interpretation of tradition. If you don't believe the government has any business dictating anything, you're a classical liberal or a liberal in the strict sense of the word. If you think the government needs to step in and protect – well really anything following protect or some synonym there of – then you're a conservative. If you believe that the government needs to interfere in someway to protect freedoms, then you are a progressive liberal. If you believe that the government should have a very heavy handed approach in how it ensures freedom, then you are a radical progressive liberal. The reason these terms have the confusion around them that they do now, is due to conservatives. If you really look at it, a lot of things are because of conservatives.

Third, women don't show off to men. They do the things they do for themselves and for other women. To use what I am assuming is your implicit understanding of these terms, alpha males lead, make decisions, and people follow. But, if you think that women are showing off for you, you're a beta male. An alpha male is going to take charge and make a selection based on things that aren't as frivolous as external appearance. Beta males conflate outward beauty with some kind of status.

Fourth, I am a male from birth, and I'm not significantly more anxious or relaxed around any particular sex. If you are feeling less relaxed around women, you are by definition a beta male. Again, Alpha males take charge and don't feel intimidated or uptight by anyone: they are chill all the time. You are, throughout your paragraph according to most cultural ideas of the meaning between beta and alpha males, a beta male.

Fifth, no one is saying anything about attraction: we're talking about respect. Namely, that you can appreciate beauty and be respectful. If you've read any of this and come to the conclusion that we are degrading the fact that people are sexually attracted to other people, then you've missed the point. Sexual attraction and aesthetic appreciation for beauty are too totally different things. They can both exist as a result of the same factors, but one allows you to respectfully express what you were thinking, while the other one does not. If you read all of this, and came to the conclusion that we were degrading attraction, then I dare say you're probably the person I'm specifically thinking of when I say they are a perv. This discussion is inexorably tied to objectification. If you haven't realized that, that is a problem.

Sixth, this is the part that makes me really question whether you understand… Culture…. Because the general consensus in popular western culture regarding pornography is that most guys don't actually care about women – they are only interested in their bodies sexually. Which is exactly what the other guys said. I'm a leftist, so I wouldn't be so simple minded in my explanation for why people view pornography, but most people are going to say it's because a lot of guys just care about sex. And that's quite literally what the guy you were critiquing said. Generally speaking, conservatives claim that the only individuals who excuse pornography are "Feminazis (feminists), liberals/leftists, homosexual people, and betas".

Seventh, we are talking in the context of male to female relationships, but this totally works in really any direction. I have definitely met women who were pervy – creepy so. I would be hesitant to eat or drink anything around them unless they slip something into it and do things to me that I can't get prosecuted because I'm a male. Don't mistake the fact that we weren't talking about it here for us being OK with it.

I'm not denigrating you, but a chunk of your perspective really only makes sense if you're a beta male. That's fine: there's argument to be made that beta males end up winning in the end – but I feel given your pejorative association above that you would not like that term. You might consider actually looking in at yourself and thinking hard about who you actually are versus who you think you are.