Belle Burden’s “Strangers”

[Anonymous]

I enjoyed reading the modern love essay but I can’t imagine reading a whole book about it. The modern love thing was just a fun read because he’s terrible and they’re filthy rich. Can that sustain a whole book?

[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.

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.)

I get this but logically the man didn’t spend weekends or a week during the summer when he was married to her. He was working or socializing. Not watching kids. Nannies raised the kids. Why would he get divorced and all of a sudden want to get involved in parenting?

In NY socialite marriages the women don’t really raise the kids either. The women I know living these lifestyles spend absolutely no time with their kids. There are 24 hours in a day. You can’t socialize like that when you have a family and spend time with your kids. It isn’t possible. She wasn’t raising her kids she was at Doubles.

[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.

Yeah, no. I know those NYC finance types well and they choose that lifestyle for themselves for the money but also because they are “so important.” Family is exclusively taken care of by the wife, no matter how educated she was prior to marriage. As in, these dudes may barely even show up for a newborn.

And we don’t know all the details of the finances. It sounds like she contributed significantly with her trust and he got to walk away with a big net worth and big career thanks to her contributions (financial and caregiving). Even if he was slaving away to support her and the kids, in these scenarios the wife EARNS her 50% of that because she literally raises the kids and does everything domestically. Whether or not you think these women are “vapid” there is no doubt that the men in these relationships willing choose to offload all the domestic labor on their wives so that they can gratify themselves with their oh-so-important deals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. These kinds of books are carefully vetted by publishers these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I enjoyed reading the modern love essay but I can’t imagine reading a whole book about it. The modern love thing was just a fun read because he’s terrible and they’re filthy rich. Can that sustain a whole book?

She’s a very good writer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, he certainly made sure to protect his wealth with that prenup.

[Anonymous]

People commenting don’t understand this world and lifestyle.

The wife socialized and he funded it. They didn’t spend much time together which is evident by the full time girlfriend she didn’t even know about! She was so occupied despite not having a real job and having FT nannies, that she didn’t know her husband had a GF. Think about that.

They were spending practically no time together and they didn’t know each other. Then the pandemic happened and he freaked out being stuck in a home with his vapid shallow wife.

I blame both of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People commenting don’t understand this world and lifestyle.

The wife socialized and he funded it. They didn’t spend much time together which is evident by the full time girlfriend she didn’t even know about! She was so occupied despite not having a real job and having FT nannies, that she didn’t know her husband had a GF. Think about that.

They were spending practically no time together and they didn’t know each other. Then the pandemic happened and he freaked out being stuck in a home with his vapid shallow wife.

I blame both of them.

Many people carry on years-long affairs without their partners being the wiser, so I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. Her only mistake seems to have been trusting him. Interesting that you defend a man who dumped his minor kids without a second thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's not true. She (her family) paid for the private schools and she contributed 50% of their expenses every month. He was meticulous about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, he certainly made sure to protect his wealth with that prenup.

Of course he did. Women like this are just looking for a husband to bankroll them. That’s part of the deal. It’s practically a business transaction. The men know it and the women know it.

Have you run in these circles? It isn’t normal. The women are after the money and even more so if they come from a wealthy background and can’t imagine a lifestyle without a Nantucket house, classic 6, weekend nanny, holiday lunch at the colony club etc. They aren’t going to marry a man who can’t provide this. Hence her overlooking his sketchy past.

I have a NY socialite friend who only spends time with her husband when socializing. They often aren’t even at the same residence. He bankrolls the lifestyle and she plans and enables a busy social calendar. It’s not a normal middle class marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People commenting don’t understand this world and lifestyle.

The wife socialized and he funded it. They didn’t spend much time together which is evident by the full time girlfriend she didn’t even know about! She was so occupied despite not having a real job and having FT nannies, that she didn’t know her husband had a GF. Think about that.

They were spending practically no time together and they didn’t know each other. Then the pandemic happened and he freaked out being stuck in a home with his vapid shallow wife.

I blame both of them.

Again, he funded nothing. She contributed more to the household than he did. She paid for the houses. Her family paid for the private schools and who knows what else. She paid for nice things for her kids with her personal credit card because he was cheap or selfish and hoarding his money. He had her smuggle muffins in her pocket at free breakfasts he was so cheap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, he certainly made sure to protect his wealth with that prenup.

Of course he did. Women like this are just looking for a husband to bankroll them. That’s part of the deal. It’s practically a business transaction. The men know it and the women know it.

Have you run in these circles? It isn’t normal. The women are after the money and even more so if they come from a wealthy background and can’t imagine a lifestyle without a Nantucket house, classic 6, weekend nanny, holiday lunch at the colony club etc. They aren’t going to marry a man who can’t provide this. Hence her overlooking his sketchy past.

I have a NY socialite friend who only spends time with her husband when socializing. They often aren’t even at the same residence. He bankrolls the lifestyle and she plans and enables a busy social calendar. It’s not a normal middle class marriage.

You’re just spouting ignorance about this particular book, but do carry on.

[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.

Yeah, no. I know those NYC finance types well and they choose that lifestyle for themselves for the money but also because they are “so important.” Family is exclusively taken care of by the wife, no matter how educated she was prior to marriage. As in, these dudes may barely even show up for a newborn.

And we don’t know all the details of the finances. It sounds like she contributed significantly with her trust and he got to walk away with a big net worth and big career thanks to her contributions (financial and caregiving). Even if he was slaving away to support her and the kids, in these scenarios the wife EARNS her 50% of that because she literally raises the kids and does everything domestically. Whether or not you think these women are “vapid” there is no doubt that the men in these relationships willing choose to offload all the domestic labor on their wives so that they can gratify themselves with their oh-so-important deals.

The NYT excerpted some of the book where she explains how Davis screwed her in the prenup. Basically, he insisted all the properties be in both their names (even though they were houses she had from her far wealthier family.) And then he put in the prenup that all earned income would be in the name of the earner only, and she got screwed because she had stopped working to take care of the kids.

She said she saw it was uneven at the time, but she was in love...so she signed.

[Anonymous]

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

Without knowing what kind of trust fund she had, it’s hard to know. But yeah, the idea that she would stop work and get none of his earnings (made possible by her domestic labor) rankles. At least the properties were joint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You absolutely do not know that. her parents were paying for college and private schools. And of course she was doing all the work that allowed him to waltz off to his “important” job and still have a family and a home.