So custody of the eyes actually holds a key to the spousal meaning of the body.
So custody of the eyes is actually a constitution of the ethos of redemption of the body.
So in the ethos of redemption custody of the eyes becomes a custom more and more fixed.
How about that, eh?
You who experiences these fruits of the Spirit in the ethos of redemption - you lustful, lustful negative man!
(I know, today is not a day of Lent. I may use this to fill later on.)
Update: This just in: as of some seconds ago: just to make a turn on that most idiotic enthusiast Westian phrase, "The problem with pornography is not that it shows too much but that it shows too little": The problem with Christopher West's misinterpretation of The Theology of the Body is not that he goes too far, but that he does not go far enough.
Or, ahem, if you will: it is not that he shows too much but that he shows too little.
Update #2: Because he cannot stop cramming everything into his singular sexual mold - the crucible of sexualization which if you do not pass through you will be unworthy of bringing about the new evangelization. You must complete what the "sexual revolution" started.
Update #3: For West is entrapped in the interpretation of suspicion: "Those who live by suspicion remain so locked in their own lusts that they project the same bondage onto everything else." (Theology of the Body for beginners, Christopher West)
Update #4: So enthralled is West in this bondage to interpretation of suspicion that everything is suspect that doesn't pass through the crucible of sexualization. In the words of commenter jvc: "West's obsession with Manicheaism is his Moby Dick."
Update #5: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!!!!!