But your real mistake is to have allowed yourself to enter into correspondence with her. I defy you now to predict where this will lead. Are you by any chance hoping to prove to this woman by logic that she must give herself to you? It seems to me this can only be a sentimental and not a demonstrable truth, and that, in order to make it acceptable, you have to move her, not argue with her. What good would it do you to move her by writing letters, seeing you will not be there to take advantage of it? Even though your fine words may have an intoxicating effect, do you flatter yourself that that state will last long enough not to allow her time for reflection and so prevent her confessing it? Remember how long it takes to write a letter, and the time it takes before you send it. And tell me whether a woman, especially a principled woman like your devotee, can sustain for all that time a desire she is struggling never to entertain? This procedure may work with the young, who, when they write ‘I love you’, do not realize they are saying ‘I am yours’. But Madame de Tourvel, who is so conscious of her virtue, seems to me to know perfectly well what value attaches to these expressions. So, in spite of the advantage that you gained in conversation with her, she defeats you in her letter.
— Pierre Choderlos De Laclos, Dangerous Liaisons, transl by Helen Constantine, (2007)