In Be’er Mayim Chayim he concludes [based on a contradiction from the Talmud in Pesachim] that one should be stringent regarding the prohibition of looking at forbidden sexual matters.
So citing him as a source is a bit difficult…

In addition, I’d be glad to know how you resolve his question from the Talmud in Pesachim, because of which he was forced to make his distinction, which it seems you do not accept.

Here I wasn’t relying on him; I only wrote that he discusses it. True, from the link I gave it sounds like he himself permits it, but maybe I was mistaken about that—I really don’t remember his conclusion there. In any case, it isn’t all that important in my view.
As for the matter itself, the passage in Pesachim indicates that when there is no other way, it is permitted. And the medieval authorities there explain that “no other way” means that the alternative route is somewhat harder. This is not a case of compulsion. The explanation is that when there is another route and you chose this one, that means you intend the prohibition, and therefore it is an intentional act and forbidden. But when the other route is a bit longer, then choosing the shorter one is not for the sake of the prohibition but because it is shorter, so it is considered unintentional and permitted.
As I recall, the simple reading of the passage in Bava Batra actually implies that one should close his eyes (“to bend himself away”), but from Pesachim it appears not. I don’t currently have time to get into it, and I’m planning a column on the topic in the future.