Is it 'eyes' or not?

[I am The Compendium]

I heard never to use the term 'eyes' in a sentence such as this:

His eyes were fixed on her every move.

Should it be gaze? are there exceptions?  

[The Man who was Thursday]

If you're being literal, then yeah, that sentence would mean that every time she moved, his eyes would be physically attached to her.

Who told you that?  

[MyOwnBestCritic]

It depends on if it's figurative or literal. Since everyone knows you don't mean the eyes are physically attached, getting away with it is easy. You could use gaze, but you might have to reword whatever sentence you happen to be working on. It'd be a good way to reduce the number of the same word throughout the writing, though.  

[DarkElf27]

It's a perfectly reasonable figure of speech, such as "I'll keep an eye out for ya."  

[Ame Yuki Kaze]

I think it's an alright phrase to use. It's obviously figurative. Whoever said you shouldn't use it must have very concrete logic. It's no different from saying, "Their gazes locked" or "They locked eyes on each other". These are obviously not literal, as it's impossible to physically lock gazes and eyes.  

[limp dick]

I would tolerate that.

Then again, people can be very literal.  

[saotomi5102]

The word in that context is called an abstract anomaly. It is allowed  

[Raimyah]

Ezra Pound

If you're being literal, then yeah, that sentence would mean that every time she moved, his eyes would be physically attached to her.

Who told you that?

I really do like this answer. Now that I learned something new today, I can finally feel like rewarding myself. But while it is an exception and an abstract anomoly, this consideration of the literal I see... is worth considering when styling a paragraph.