Belle Burden’s “Strangers”

[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?

That’s why I just go to Barnes and Noble and speed read the good parts 😂

[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.

You are making this all up. The kids were teens and didn’t need nannies. And she/her parents funded a big portion of their lifestyle.

[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.

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.

Ouch does she say that in the book that she contributed 50%?

[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 describing a (wealthy flavor of) SAHM, which I am extremely common middle class marriage in conservative communities. Wealthy part just means the socializing is fancier.

[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.

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.

"All the work" being "managing the household staff".

[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.

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.

I can't imagine agreeing to the terms of thus prenuptial. How did no one, family or lawyer talk her out of it? Did they not find it suspicious he wanted this prenup when he was coming into the marriage with far less? It sounds like she would have been better off with no prenup at all.

[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.

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.

I can't imagine agreeing to the terms of thus prenuptial. How did no one, family or lawyer talk her out of it? Did they not find it suspicious he wanted this prenup when he was coming into the marriage with far less? It sounds like she would have been better off with no prenup at all.

She says she knows better now.

[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.

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.

"All the work" being "managing the household staff".

I have two SIL in similar situations and they had no household staff. I even wished they hired nannies but they did not want to. They earn every penny if they divorce!

[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.

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.

I can't imagine agreeing to the terms of thus prenuptial. How did no one, family or lawyer talk her out of it? Did they not find it suspicious he wanted this prenup when he was coming into the marriage with far less? It sounds like she would have been better off with no prenup at all.

She says she knows better now.

Still...

[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.

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.

Ouch does she say that in the book that she contributed 50%?

Yes joint bank account. Each month he would transfer a fixed amount and she'd transfer the same. 50-50. Even though she paid for the houses from her trust, her parents paid for the kids' tuition, and she put a lot of kid expenses on the credit card she paid herself out of her family's money. He didn't support her at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Ouch does she say that in the book that she contributed 50%?

Yes joint bank account. Each month he would transfer a fixed amount and she'd transfer the same. 50-50. Even though she paid for the houses from her trust, her parents paid for the kids' tuition, and she put a lot of kid expenses on the credit card she paid herself out of her family's money. He didn't support her at all.

He sounds like a leech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agreed! I would read a novel if she writes one! I just can’t believe there’s so much more to say about this dude.

[Anonymous]

Why did she even marry him? I have a friend an immigrant from Eastern Europe. She married a trust funder and they have the opposite arrangement: her earnings are only hers and he pays rent/mortgage. She only marginally contributes to living expenses.
She’s a lawyer and already amassed a fortune, saving every year almost $200k and dumping it in stocks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why did she even marry him? I have a friend an immigrant from Eastern Europe. She married a trust funder and they have the opposite arrangement: her earnings are only hers and he pays rent/mortgage. She only marginally contributes to living expenses.
She’s a lawyer and already amassed a fortune, saving every year almost $200k and dumping it in stocks

Apparently the sex was unbelievable ( her words).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did she even marry him? I have a friend an immigrant from Eastern Europe. She married a trust funder and they have the opposite arrangement: her earnings are only hers and he pays rent/mortgage. She only marginally contributes to living expenses.
She’s a lawyer and already amassed a fortune, saving every year almost $200k and dumping it in stocks

Apparently the sex was unbelievable ( her words).

Ah, D..matized. What I like about women from Eastern Europe - they are very smart and great in math. Mathematics is taught in schools way better than in the US and it’s useful skill in life. Also men shouldn’t be taken for more than they are worth.