@MarshaBradyo Certain stereotypes lay dormant behind images and it doesn't take much to awaken them and then allow erroneous conclusions to be drawn.
A good example would be people who are overweight = lazy.
Using certain images (and in this case I explicitly mean the image of a woman with her head covered) can be used by those with negative views about women as an affirmation of their views (presumably because their logic is distorted anyway!) so, when constructing (that is, designing it all the way through) something, why give space to that when you can avoid it?
I think they have played this incredibly well (from an ad's point of view). We're having a discussion on it, therefore, it has generated publicity and ad clicks but crucially, they can say there was no sexual intent there because the woman is well covered (for a swimsuit), playing innocently with man and women (there is a playful theme throughout) and anyone who looks for dubious intent throughout the ad is reading too much into it but then there is the crucial print shot (seemingy innocent) of a PERSONALITYLESS person - just, effectively, a body. It is impossible, in the current climate, when discourse on imagery is so focused on bodies, function, autonomy, agency to ignore the faceless (humanising) element as you have pointed out, the male is framed. They are telling us what they think is most important; male=framed head, woman = body.
Of course, most women don't see that because we don't see our body only and selectively for one purpose or in a limiting view so we can see the lighthearted nature of it. But knowing what we do know about how some people think, why give them oxygen?
And now I do need to get on with work so will bow out of the discussion.