First of all, this post will mean nothing to you if you've only watched that wat ered-down trash

called 'Cruel Intentions'. If you did watch Dangerous Liasons ho wever, you may take something away form this post after you read it. Ryan Phillippe's rendition of Valmont in 'Cruel Intentions' was a bit weak in my opinion. And slightly/needllessly flaming. Instead watch 'Dangerous Liasons' wi th John Malkovich and you'll get a more revealing insight into what made the Vic omte de Valmont tick - John Malkovich is a brilliant actor that epitomizes cool, collected, control of emotion, and he was able to caputure the essense of this character - the ultimate manipulator of emotions, both of others and his own (wh ich ironically led to his demise). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094947/ I think Valmont's greatest seductive power was that he was able to make himself truly believe that he was "helpless" in the face of a beautiful woman, and had n o choice but to throw himself upon her and eventually seduce her. He seemed so ' natural' because he believed that it was in his nature to be sexually ravenous. This seamlessly internalized belief enabled him to act with total calmness and d eliberation when in seduction mode - he had no inner conflict about his behavior and nature, and thus all systems were a-go in his head. In other words he was 1 00% congruent. Now don't get me wrong. This guy was no Don Juan de Marco, who actually did love everything about women. This guy was a troubled and conflicted character who wa s pretty much an open mysoginist, and as a result his path toward seduction is n ot wholesome or mutually enriching ("leave a girl better than when you met her") , but dark. As a spoiled little rich-boy who didn't get much attention growing u p (I suppose this was self-evident in the book and film since he was essentially a loner with no real friends, no family, and no spiritual mentor), he made torm enting others his mission in life. And so destroying the lives and reputaions of hapless females gave him the outlet he needed to vent his anger. Note that he was also able to temporarily blur the line between true belief (tha t he was in love) and self-hypnosis (essentially, self-deception) - at will - to achieve these ends. This may even suggest a schizophrenic element in his person ality as he simultaneously believed he was in love (a sincere person), but could also make himself fall in and out of love suit his needs and further his agenda (a manipulator). So in summation he really does fall in love, at least in the h eat of the moment, but in the end the underlying motivations of falling in love are nefarious.... hence he can shake himself out of the love-trance at will. (Th is important distinction becomes very clear when you watch Dangerous Liasons, bu t is lost on you when you watch Cruel Intentions because of all the preteen popculture hoo-ha.) Valmont was in fact very much aware of every single action he was taking, but he was either such a good actor, or so good at momentary self-hypnosis (That is, m aking himself believe at that moment that he was indeed "helpless" but to obey h is baser instincts in defiling virtuous women.... this works on the same princip le as the visualization or self-affirmation exercises some people do.) that his actions were seamlessly flowing.... natural. Coupled with what I'm going to expl ain below, he became totally congruent and thus 'sincere' and believable in the eyes of those he successfully seduced. So paradoxically, Valmont seemed sincere even in his devious antics - never forc eful or deliberate but helpless (and thus 'innnocent'... in a round-about way) i n his almost-reflexive, slave-like devotion to carnal desire - as though he was a puppet on strings and involuntarily compliant to his impulses. The novel (and film) suggests that when he actually did fall in love with his target, the pious and faithful Madame de Tourvel - but I don't buy it. He knew what he was doing all along, and managed to so thoroughly convince himself that he was 'helplessly in love' that he actually tricked himself into believing that he was in 'love'. Such was his efficiency at deception that he deceived even himself. Now read this quote by Valmont: You see. I have no intention of breaking down her prodigiousness. I want her to

believe in god and virtue and the sanctity of marriage, and still, not be able t o stop herself. I want the excitement of watching her betray everything that's m ost important to her. ... in the eyes of a woman that witnesses his deception, his apparent passion wa s so great (that is, 'convincingly expressed' thanks to the congruence between h is self-image/beliefs and actions) that he was powerless to resist, and in an ir onic example of backward female logic, was also his allure in the mind of a fema le. Remember... passion is the one thing that women desire the most when they ar e stuck in a romantic rut (i.e. a stale or crumbling relationship, or if they've been single). It fries all the synapses and renders them babbling idiots, incid entally much like the effect a pair of big soft tits has on a man. And in a woma n's 'illogical logic', she accepts this notion (of helpless surrender to PASSION ) and backward-rationalizes that it's alright because 'he can't help it' (and ne ither can she, in the face of such intense, 'romantic' fervor). On top of this the flattery - the notion that a woman is so attractive and desirable that a ma n loses his very sanity - is a huge ego boost to a female and aids in her volunt ary seduction at the hands of Valmont. These were the dynamics at work in the pa th toward destruction that ruined the pious Mme de Tourvel, and also Valmont him self. And as a final and peripheral point it is worthy to note that the only person wh o Valmont could not seduce was the equally evil Marquise de Merteuil - precisely because it takes one to know or see one. That is why Tyler Durden's 'Secret Soc iety' exists.