Feminine aesthetics and modeling

In honor of Rabbi Michael Shalom!
I’ve been wondering for a long time whether, according to Jewish law, it is permissible for a woman to model in swimsuits.
From the “Jewish religion” perspective in Tractate Ketubot, as I understood from the Gemara, these are conditions for divorce and not laws in themselves. Just as it is not a crime in itself to boil a stew, yet it is a problem in marital relationships.
But even if it is a matter of real modesty, nowadays a swimsuit, especially when it comes to the modeling context, is something ordinary, normal, and accepted in Jewish society, and in any case not forbidden by the “Jewish religion” – which is the acceptance of Jewish women for themselves.
What I did think was that there could be a problem of “don’t put a stumbling block before the blind” – about the man’s reflection. But here I don’t know what the limit is.
A man is allowed to glance at a beautiful woman. It is true that it is forbidden to look at a beautiful woman, even if she is single, but a glance is not “looking” (as the Gemara says in the Book of Zechariah) and it is not a “way of prostitution” (as the Maimonides says). Rabbi Akiva blessed the blessing “Breyot Yotef” when he saw a beautiful woman in a corner, and “Torah was not given to the angels of the service” (as the Ezer Mekodesh Bid’yoni says about the prohibition of contemplation), and we have already found that women washed in the river and only the man needs to rape himself and incite the gaze of Baba Batra.
The value of female aesthetics is a social-feminine value. Many women need to look beautiful (and men too, of course) and there is a need for aesthetic culture, even to give an example of how this or that item looks on a woman’s body as part of the culture of aesthetic consumption.
I understand that a model representation that is intentionally made to arouse erotic feelings (such as a seductive look, sexual symbols, a representation that shows an erotic connection between people within it) is “before the blind.” And here, in my opinion, the main thing is the intention. But modeling swimwear can be in the form of aesthetics and not eroticism. And be intended for the gaze of women and not attract men.
Otherwise, what is the limit? (It seems to me somewhere that the question, analytically speaking, also applies to a picture of a woman in a non-swimwear advertisement, the only difference is in some sense of this or that public.)
I think the question of “before blind” is also socially important regarding the phenomenon of spraying graffiti on a woman’s face in public advertisements.
From a broader perspective, there is a question here about social correction through a law that does not cut off the existing culture but rather shapes it. A question that can also be relevant to a secular person, and therefore to the criteria for applying “Jewish religious laws” from the perspective of the secular public.
Thank you very much and Happy Shabbat!