Thus, the term "knowledge" used in Genesis 4:1-2 and often in the Bible, raises the conjugal relation of man and woman, that is, the fact that through the duality of sex they become "one flesh," and brings it into the specific dimension of the persons. Genesis 4:1-2 speaks only about "knowledge" of the woman by the man, as if to underline above all the man's activity. One can, however, also speak of the reciprocity of this "knowledge," in which man and woman participate through their body and their sex. Let us add that a series of subsequent biblical texts, e.g., the very same chapter of Genesis (see Gen 4:17.25), speak with the same language. And this way of speaking goes all the way up to the words spoken by Mary of Nazareth in the Annunciation, "How is this possible? I do not know man" (Lk 1:34). --From TOB 20:3
There is an account of Saint Dominic in which someone once asked him why he kept his eyes lowered to the ground for most of the day.
St. Dominic replied, "So that my eyes might be pure when I one day behold the Blessed Mother."
Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger has a very good article here that goes into the important matters, like the mystery that Christ was virginally conceived in Mary, and that it was not impregnation of any kind.
Also read Alice von Hildebrand's essay, which similarly touches upon the subject of analogy.
I've read the chapter, A Garden Closed, A Fountain Sealed from West's book Heaven's Song.
In that chapter Our Lady is analogized, de-personalized into a figuration of the feminine sexual as the highest example of one who was most fully impregnated with/by God (thus Christ is de-personalized as well), as though the Incarnation was just a question of her receiving the greatest possible measure of God as-union-with-Him, rather than the virginal incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity. So it continues, in this way, that she was able to fully experience the sexuality of her body, and thus it is for this reason that we enter her womb to learn of the goodness of our sexuality, since her sexuality (our sexuality being the one key desire for communion with God) was fully impregnated with God and thus we can be formed into "another Christ" (though at this point what "Christ" means is anybody's guess) in her womb. And that's why she did not engage in the marital act with St. Joseph - because that would have been a "step backward":
To recognize Mary as the "Immaculate One" is to recognize that her sexuality was never muddled by our fallen condition. For she experienced the fullness of redemption right from the first moment of her conception. This would mean that Mary's purity allowed her to experience her sexuality in its fullness - as a deep yearning for total communion with God in Christ. This is why she didn't have sexual relations with Joseph: not because marital union is "unholy," but because she was already living the union beyond sexual union - union with God. This is not to knock Joseph, but earthly, sexual union with him would have been for Mary a step backwards. Instead, Mary took Joseph forward with her into the fulfillment of all desire. --from Heaven's Song, Pg. 86-87
We see in that one single passage (and throughout the chapter) the deconstruction of The Holy Family. Because West has reduced the Incarnation in the way he does (because West is a Manichaean), there is no mention of the Christ Child.
Thus, according to West, the virginal relations between Mary and Joseph was owing to Mary's "sexual fullness" - not because they were both set aside by the very Incarnation which was virginally conceived without impregnation, and which, in being fostered and protected with joy by them, was of a fulfillment in them that was so great that to speak of the sexual sphere in regards to them would be like talking about...well, the sexual sphere of the souls in Heaven. Oh yes, it would also be absolutely insulting to them as well.
In a manner of speaking, the Incarnation "took up all the space". Not temporarily like it was just some distraction, but because it was the Incarnation, being the very pivot of history and of humankind, they gave themselves to Him forever as He chose them, and in so doing, they became The Holy Family. It would have been impossible for either of them, both Mary and Joseph, to turn to sexual desire or to move from sexual desire.
It's precisely here that the Westian will say, "So you're saying that they were without sexuality?!"
Perhaps the Westian can't imagine that the God who created human persons and who made them sexual beings, now being incarnate in the lives of two chaste spouses, couldn't possibly raise that sphere in such a way that it was in its fullest yet, in contrast to the Revelation of their Son and Saviour, was sweetly disposed of, without annihilation and without tension.
In other words they cannot see that The Holy Family is, well, The Holy Family.
It makes sense though, since Christopher West teaches his disciples to stare at their own naked bodies in the mirror until they overcome "their shame". No wonder they can't get over their sexual obsessions.
Christopher West is a living example of what Pope John Paul II (as Karol Wojtyla) wrote about on Humanae Vitae, concerning the "overevaluation of sex":
Modern man must decide correctly, too, the value of conjugal union and the true meaning of love in the mutual relationship of persons of the opposite sex. ... Here too, the encyclical shows an awareness of the complexity of the situation. It does not put all the blame for aberration on the evils of "sexualism," but it does seek to make evident the true value of sex in human life and above all in marriage. The overevaluation of sex results in its devaluation. This is the fundamental error of "sexualism" in its various forms. On this basis, contraceptive attitudes arise as well as the demand for the legalization of contraceptives. The author of the encyclical declares himself in favor of the true value of sex, and defends it against the abasement which lies hidden in its overevaluation in daily life, particularly in conjugal life.