Belle Burden’s “Strangers”

[Anonymous]

My STBX is not a gazillionaire and believes all sorts of things about himself and the kids’ feelings about his behavior. I can only imagine how insufferable he would be with access to a press release and a ton of money. These guys really believe their own bullsh-t, which makes sense because otherwise how could you get through a single day without dying from shame?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My STBX is not a gazillionaire and believes all sorts of things about himself and the kids’ feelings about his behavior. I can only imagine how insufferable he would be with access to a press release and a ton of money. These guys really believe their own bullsh-t, which makes sense because otherwise how could you get through a single day without dying from shame?

To be fair, my ex-wife was this way. It’s not gender specific. Her multi-year affair came out in the early days of Covid too. It’s a “type” these people. She also was blameless in her own eyes.

[Anonymous]

^ one of those “cheating makes me a better wife and mother” types…while escaping any chance she could get. Coming up with reasons to go away for the night or weekend.

[Anonymous]

Happens all the time. Lesson learned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's on the modern love podcast today.

No gift links left: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/14/podcasts/belle-burden-husband-strangers.html?smid=url-share

online, there's a little blurb that says:

When reached for comment about Ms. Burden’s recollections relating to their divorce and custody of their children, Ms. Burden’s ex-husband provided the following response:

“While I disagree with many of her recollections, as well as her overall mischaracterization of my relationship with my children, I do not wish to comment in more detail in order to protect them from further violations of their privacy other than to say that I continue to lovingly support, and be lovingly supported by, my children.”

Yeah. That's a lie. Perhaps one he believes himself.

You don't know that. None of us do.

He would have easy evidence to the contrary if it existed in the form of legal documents, and his lawyers would have produced it prior to the book being published, since he knew she was going to say that.

Why? Seems like he doesn’t want to air his dirty laundry. A public fight is low class. She obviously needs the money or has a screw loose for the book.

[Anonymous]

Yall have your head in the sand if you think dad's don't leave their kids the majority of the time.

My friend is a divorce lawyer and her favorite move is acting like they will force 50/50 custody and watching men admit they don't really want the kid in front of the judge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yall have your head in the sand if you think dad's don't leave their kids the majority of the time.

My friend is a divorce lawyer and her favorite move is acting like they will force 50/50 custody and watching men admit they don't really want the kid in front of the judge.

Maybe but the issue described in this book isn’t that hedge fund dad didn’t want 50/50 custody. He didn’t want any custody at all. Not even alternate weekends or 2 weeks during the summer.

Most dads would have some custody just so they don’t look like an uninterested a**. That this guy with tons of money who could have hired someone to watch the kids during his time was so adamant about not having the kids on any overnight at all if pretty telling.

[Anonymous]

I see this differently than a lot of other commenters and don’t necessarily judge him leaving the kids.

I was married to someone with a personality disorder and one of his favorite threats was to threaten to take the kids from me. This was despite me being the primary caregiver.

Would it be better if she was forced to lose primary custody and not see her kids half the time? I believe a child needs both parents, but there is some nuance when one parent has been the primary parent all along.


While she comes from money, she was mostly illiquid, and he was working 24-7 to support that lifestyle. I am familiar with that NY finance lifestyle and you can’t have it both ways. If you want the country house, private school and nice apartment then your husband is mostly absent unless you have generational wealthy to use. It’s not surprising he was mostly absent. I highly doubt she ever offered to return to work so he could scale back and spend time with the kids. She instead probably wanted that Colony Club membership more. Then they get divorced and it makes sense she continued on as the primary and really only true parent.

IMHO the gentlemanly thing to do wasn’t for him to leave her AND take her kids half the time while he was at it. He probably thought he was choosing the lesser of two evils.

I’ve known plenty of these NY women and they are vapid, shallow and their main priority is the lifestyle and social life. I’d be shocked if she’s not similar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's on the modern love podcast today.

No gift links left: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/14/podcasts/belle-burden-husband-strangers.html?smid=url-share

online, there's a little blurb that says:

When reached for comment about Ms. Burden’s recollections relating to their divorce and custody of their children, Ms. Burden’s ex-husband provided the following response:

“While I disagree with many of her recollections, as well as her overall mischaracterization of my relationship with my children, I do not wish to comment in more detail in order to protect them from further violations of their privacy other than to say that I continue to lovingly support, and be lovingly supported by, my children.”

My brother has a high level finance job in NYC and a shocking number of men do the CTRL-ALT-DEL on their former lives once they hit their 50s. Not surprised this man’s “recollections” differ.

When I was in MBA school, my school gave an award to a female Goldman Sachs executive. During her acceptance address, she told the students unironically that she loved her job more than being a mother to her 4 children. I felt sorry for her 4!!! kids. No matter what one's ambition or skillset, it's really cold to make that kind of remark in front of hundreds of strangers. It would have been just as bad if it was a male executive but it's definitely a more rare thing for a female to say out loud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see this differently than a lot of other commenters and don’t necessarily judge him leaving the kids.

I was married to someone with a personality disorder and one of his favorite threats was to threaten to take the kids from me. This was despite me being the primary caregiver.

Would it be better if she was forced to lose primary custody and not see her kids half the time? I believe a child needs both parents, but there is some nuance when one parent has been the primary parent all along.


While she comes from money, she was mostly illiquid, and he was working 24-7 to support that lifestyle. I am familiar with that NY finance lifestyle and you can’t have it both ways. If you want the country house, private school and nice apartment then your husband is mostly absent unless you have generational wealthy to use. It’s not surprising he was mostly absent. I highly doubt she ever offered to return to work so he could scale back and spend time with the kids. She instead probably wanted that Colony Club membership more. Then they get divorced and it makes sense she continued on as the primary and really only true parent.

IMHO the gentlemanly thing to do wasn’t for him to leave her AND take her kids half the time while he was at it. He probably thought he was choosing the lesser of two evils.

I’ve known plenty of these NY women and they are vapid, shallow and their main priority is the lifestyle and social life. I’d be shocked if she’s not similar.

Again, no one is saying that Davis needed to take custody of the kids 50/50. They’re saying it’s shocking that he didn’t even want to have custody of them for alternate weekends or a week during the summer. That’s basically parental abandonment (although I imagine he sent child support checks even if he tried to screw his wife in the prenup.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's on the modern love podcast today.

No gift links left: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/14/podcasts/belle-burden-husband-strangers.html?smid=url-share

online, there's a little blurb that says:

When reached for comment about Ms. Burden’s recollections relating to their divorce and custody of their children, Ms. Burden’s ex-husband provided the following response:

“While I disagree with many of her recollections, as well as her overall mischaracterization of my relationship with my children, I do not wish to comment in more detail in order to protect them from further violations of their privacy other than to say that I continue to lovingly support, and be lovingly supported by, my children.”

Yeah. That's a lie. Perhaps one he believes himself.

You don't know that. None of us do.

He would have easy evidence to the contrary if it existed in the form of legal documents, and his lawyers would have produced it prior to the book being published, since he knew she was going to say that.

Why? Seems like he doesn’t want to air his dirty laundry. A public fight is low class. She obviously needs the money or has a screw loose for the book.

Because if she were lying about the custody thing or the size of his new place, that's so easily provable that the publisher would not have published it if his lawyers had sent a letter with that evidence. It wouldn't have needed to be especially public.

Previous commenters are correct that he's not actually contesting that he had no interest in custody, just that the kids don't hate him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see this differently than a lot of other commenters and don’t necessarily judge him leaving the kids.

I was married to someone with a personality disorder and one of his favorite threats was to threaten to take the kids from me. This was despite me being the primary caregiver.

Would it be better if she was forced to lose primary custody and not see her kids half the time? I believe a child needs both parents, but there is some nuance when one parent has been the primary parent all along.


While she comes from money, she was mostly illiquid, and he was working 24-7 to support that lifestyle. I am familiar with that NY finance lifestyle and you can’t have it both ways. If you want the country house, private school and nice apartment then your husband is mostly absent unless you have generational wealthy to use. It’s not surprising he was mostly absent. I highly doubt she ever offered to return to work so he could scale back and spend time with the kids. She instead probably wanted that Colony Club membership more. Then they get divorced and it makes sense she continued on as the primary and really only true parent.

IMHO the gentlemanly thing to do wasn’t for him to leave her AND take her kids half the time while he was at it. He probably thought he was choosing the lesser of two evils.

I’ve known plenty of these NY women and they are vapid, shallow and their main priority is the lifestyle and social life. I’d be shocked if she’s not similar.

Burden says she emptied her trusts to buy their residential properties which were jointly titled and she also contributed to their family expenses with her money. She also did pro bono work as a lawyer and has ramped it up since her divorce. All that the husband did was use her family name and connections to amass his own wealth which he protected with a prenup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She alludes to his leaving just as he made it really big time in his career, so it looks like he had been quietly planning and placed the cherry on top with an exit affair.

I’m looking forward to getting off the library waitlist for this book. I might have to buy it.

My STBX did the same thing. I assume our finances involve fewer zeros but it was the same kind of timing and carefully planned around a promotion and stock grants.

[Anonymous]

The prenup was a warning sign. Not that there was one, but that the terms were so tilted in his favor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this differently than a lot of other commenters and don’t necessarily judge him leaving the kids.

I was married to someone with a personality disorder and one of his favorite threats was to threaten to take the kids from me. This was despite me being the primary caregiver.

Would it be better if she was forced to lose primary custody and not see her kids half the time? I believe a child needs both parents, but there is some nuance when one parent has been the primary parent all along.


While she comes from money, she was mostly illiquid, and he was working 24-7 to support that lifestyle. I am familiar with that NY finance lifestyle and you can’t have it both ways. If you want the country house, private school and nice apartment then your husband is mostly absent unless you have generational wealthy to use. It’s not surprising he was mostly absent. I highly doubt she ever offered to return to work so he could scale back and spend time with the kids. She instead probably wanted that Colony Club membership more. Then they get divorced and it makes sense she continued on as the primary and really only true parent.

IMHO the gentlemanly thing to do wasn’t for him to leave her AND take her kids half the time while he was at it. He probably thought he was choosing the lesser of two evils.

I’ve known plenty of these NY women and they are vapid, shallow and their main priority is the lifestyle and social life. I’d be shocked if she’s not similar.

Burden says she emptied her trusts to buy their residential properties which were jointly titled and she also contributed to their family expenses with her money. She also did pro bono work as a lawyer and has ramped it up since her divorce. All that the husband did was use her family name and connections to amass his own wealth which he protected with a prenup.

Pro bono work and paid for homes doesn’t fund a NYC socialite lifestyle. It requires significant generational wealth or a husband at a hedge fund/private equity.

I have NY friends living similar lifestyles who are spending a million dollars a year on Nannies, vacations, private clubs, private schools etc.

Private school for two kids and the obligatory two nannies is $400k a year after tax money.

She was not funding that lifestyle. His job was.