I'm not sure I understand exactly the points you were trying to make, so let's see if I can rephrase them. Please tell me if I've got them right or not. I'll reply to my rephrasing, assuming that I've not misrepresented your opinion.

(a) the comparison between porn models and athletes fails because: (i) models actually become 'hotter' artificially, e.g. via plastic surgery, and (ii) the athlete still has a degree because he got a college scholarship to fall back on, and his fame will give him contracts even after his body stops being sufficiently good for sports.

Here I see two problems: first, the main point was not that these two activities -- athletes and models -- are 100% similar, but that they are similar with respect to the fact that you can't do them all your life -- there's an age at which you must stop. This is indeed true, and is not affected by your claim in (i) above--in fact, what (i) means is that there are more women who could in principle start a modelling career, since some of their imperfections could be corrected, while for athletes if you don't have it naturally then there's nothing you can do. As for (ii), note that most athletes do not become famous and don't have contracts, and that the degrees they get are usually bad and won't really help them remain in the same income level. Of course, some athletes are also smart and their degrees do mean something and the money they got is wisely used -- but the number of athletes in this situation is probably comparable to the number of models who are smart, have good degrees and also used the money they earned wisely.

(b) men can still have careers based on physical beauty, they simply would have to do (i) gay porn or (ii) fashion modeling or acting.

Well, the very same possibilities are open to women, plus the possibility of working in porn -- so women who want to base their careers on their looks have more possibilities, which I think was the original point?

It is the fundamental lack of respect that woman are given for gratifying men's sexual urges.

That I think is not the fault of the porn industry, but of social attitudes concerning sex--basically, that gratifying someone else's sexual urges for money (as opposed to gratifying someone else's musical urges for money, as singers do every day) is demeaning for both people involved. I, for one, think women and men whose career it is to gratify the sexual urges of others should be given as much respect as any other group of people. Anti-porn-model prejudice does indeed exist; but again I don't think that this is the fault of the porn industry.

I'd expect feminists to work to change that--so that society stops thinking that a porn model is necessarily 'bad' or 'inferior' or 'damaged goods' or 'incapable or anything else' or whatever the current version of the prejudice is. Just as they changed other kinds of unfair prejudice concerning women and their work.

Now that is a stereotyep. Look, no one is criticizing models for modelling, rather for stating it is feminist to do so. I am young, thin,good-looking AND a feminist, contrary to what I bet are your notions of feminists being fat butch women(not that being like that delegitimizes their opinion anyway). So no, I'm not somehow pissed that these models are hot, I'm just saying it is not a feminist industry and that empowerment idea they toss around is fake. Typical anti-feminist man, syaing all feminists are just pissed bc they are "ugly" and secretly need a good fuck and are jealous of hot girls.

Then let me ask you the same question I asked Dorothy Parker above -- what is empowerment, and why would it be any worse for a porn or fashion model to toss it around than for a hair stylist, a stay-at-home mom, a CEO, or a famous research scientist. Is empowerment something that can be found only in some, but not all, lines of work?

And believe me, I am not an anti-feminist man, though I do not call myself feminist. I've met many female feminists who are more or less like you -- actually young, thin, good-looking and very much interested in men and sex.

But I do think that some of the grudge against pornography and porn models comes from old-fashioned ideas about sex as demeaning, about desire as inherently demeaning for its object. So (some) feminists who claim they are OK with models working in fashion or porn will still -- I think under the conscious or unconscious influence of such ideas -- deny them the possibility of feeling truly "empowered".

Now, I may be wrong about that -- I'd like to hear your views on the topic.

but magazines like Playboy and Maxim airbrush their models so much, they hardly look like themselves

Which is the reason why I personally don't like these magazines. But there's a lot more to porn than Playboy or Maxim. I think the times when Playboy defined porn are long, long gone. Porn nowadays includes many, many more body shapes than the ones that scandalize Ms Harding.