Question

In honor of Rabbi Michael, hello!
I’ve been wondering for a long time: according to Jewish law, is it permitted for a woman to model swimsuits?
From the standpoint of “Jewish practice” in tractate Ketubot, as I understood from the Talmud, these are conditions for divorce and not laws in themselves. Just as it is not a transgression in itself to burn a dish, yet it is still a problem in the marital relationship.
But even if these are actual obligations of modesty, nowadays a swimsuit—certainly in the context of modeling—is something ordinary, normal, and accepted in Jewish society, and therefore it would not be forbidden under “Jewish practice,” which is based on what Jewish women accepted upon themselves.
What I did think is that there could be a problem of “do not place a stumbling block” because of a man’s erotic thoughts. But here I don’t know where the boundary is.
A man is allowed to catch a brief glance of a beautiful woman. It is true that one may not gaze at a beautiful woman, even if she is unmarried, but a brief glance is not “looking” (in the language of the Talmud in Avodah Zarah), and it is not “in a licentious manner” (in the language of Maimonides). Rabbi Akiva recited the blessing over “beautiful creatures” when he saw a beautiful woman at a street corner, and “the Torah was not given to ministering angels” (as stated by Ezer Mikodesh in discussions of the prohibition of erotic thoughts). We also already find that women washed clothes by the river, and only the man had to force himself and turn his gaze away, in Bava Batra.
The value of female aesthetics is a social and feminine value. Many women have a need to appear beautiful (and men too, of course), and there is a need for an aesthetic culture, even quite practically, in order to give an example of how this or that item looks on a woman’s body as part of aesthetic consumer culture.
I understand that a modeling presentation done intentionally to arouse erotic feelings—such as a seductive look, sexual symbols, or a presentation that depicts an erotic connection between people within it—falls under “do not place a stumbling block.” And here, in my opinion, the main thing is the intention. But modeling swimsuits can be done in a way that is aesthetics and not eroticism, and be aimed at women viewers rather than attracting men.
Otherwise, where is the boundary? Analytically, it feels to me that the question is equally valid regarding a picture of a woman in an advertisement that is not for swimsuits; the only difference is some kind of feeling on the part of one public or another.
I think the question of “do not place a stumbling block” is also socially important with regard to the phenomenon of spraying graffiti over women’s faces in public advertisements.
In a broader view, there is a question here about social repair through Jewish law in a way that does not chop down existing culture but rather shapes it. This is a question that could also be relevant to a secular person, and therefore to the criteria for applying the “laws of Jewish practice” from the point of view of the secular public.
Thank you very much, and Sabbath peace!