Nate Berkus and Jeremiah Brent in NYC

Posted on April 25, 2014

Kittens, you all have permission to chloroform us and drag us into a waiting van if you ever see us out in public dressed like this:


Nate-Berkus-Jeremiah-Brent-NYC-GOTS-JET-Tom-Lorenzo-Site-TLO (1)Designer Nate Berkus and fiance Jeremiah Brent heading to a jewelry event in New York City.

Nate-Berkus-Jeremiah-Brent-NYC-GOTS-JET-Tom-Lorenzo-Site-TLO (2)

Nate-Berkus-Jeremiah-Brent-NYC-GOTS-JET-Tom-Lorenzo-Site-TLO (3)

Why must the celebu-gay couples always be so embarrassing in their style, darlings? We want to never stop hitting them.






  • Please review our Community Guidelines before posting a comment. Thank you!

    • Chuck Barthelme

      The sad part is that if either of them was alone, they’d be okay. I love that polka dotted jacket. Not sure I like the shiny smoking slippers though.

      • Chuck Barthelme

        I should add- if you’re wearing a jacket, probably better to keep your phone in the inside breast pocket rather than have the outline show through your pants.

      • DebbieLovesShoes

        You’re okay with the no socks? That is driving me crazy.

        • Chuck Barthelme

          I think it would be better sockless if the shoes were lace-ups oxfords, but I don’t hate the no sock look in general. Not sure I like the no sock look combined with the rolled up suit pants though.

          • DebbieLovesShoes

            Good point on the oxfords.

            Yeah, the no socks and rolled up pants sent me right over the edge. He should be sitting on a dock with a fishin’ pole.

          • MilaXX

            It’s hilarious to see how divisive the whole no sock vs sock thing is for the Bitter Kittenrazzi.

            • Jessica Freeman

              We have all the opinions around here. The Uncles have taught us well…as exhibited by when it is appropriate to go sockless.

            • DebbieLovesShoes


            • Chuck Barthelme

              If I were dressed like them, I don’t think I’d go sockless. I think you have to have a certain cut of pant for sockless to really work well- and neither of them has pants that are ideal for the look. Also, they’ve just chosen the wrong shoes.

            • Tom and Lorenzo

              I think you nailed it. A skinnier pant is what you need for the sockless look. We’ve never had a problem with going sock-free, unlike our BKs, who seem to universally hate it.

            • kittenwithaquip

              Maybe it’s not so much the flash of the sockless ankle, but the boy-twee posing employed here. It’s the little bow ties, small blazers, head-cocked-to-the-side, toes-inward-gotta-pee-pose AND lack of socks that makes this look so hard to stomach. I feel like I’m looking at cute pictures of two ragtag little scamps being dragged to church by their mom.

            • Trent

              Sing it, sister! And Nate Berkus is 42 — too mature by half for this cutesy pose, IMO. They are pretty, though.

            • bitchybitchybitchy

              You have it. There is just something too precious by half about this.

            • ktr33

              Exactly, skinny leg, slightly cropped maybe mid-ankle — then sockless can be cute and chic. And bleh, not with loafers.

            • Jacob Bowen

              I LOVE sock-free! Rockin’ it ALL the time!

            • cheekypinky

              It’s perfectly acceptable, and looks quite sharp with the skinny pant, particularly a colored skinny pant. It just looks silly here, like, “Oh noes! Did we forget our sockies with our tuxies? TEE HEE.”

            • MilaXX

              When Pharell wears long pants he can rock this look and it looks nice.

            • Jessica Freeman

              I can think of no moments where sockless with tux would be appropriate. Much less taking it one step further roll up the pants…to show lack of socks. My tall self however is grateful to anyone who tries to make flood pants happen.

            • formerlyAnon

              I can think of no moments where sockless with tux would be appropriate.


            • demidaemon


            • vitaminC

              Beach wedding, and ONLY a beach wedding. That is all.

            • Trent

              Agreed. I go sockless with Converse slip-ons and the like under casual pants and jeans whenever it’s warm. However, going sockless under business suits or with rolled-up suit pants is not for me. And with a tux? Forget it…

            • Mr. J.

              I’m sorry. No socks = Preppy/Queeny grossout….My darlings, go barefoot, if you have to.

            • formerlyAnon

              Yup. It’s the entitled-preppy-asshole connotation that dooms it for me, if I delve. In my formative years, only persons adopting what I saw as the entitled-preppy-asshole persona wore the sockless look.

            • SierraDelta

              Many of my (male) cousins are entitled-preppy-assholes. I don’t think they own more than four collective pairs of socks, so they must rotate them amongst themselves all season long. They also show up at summer weddings in pastel linen slacks (to highlight their aging bare ankles?), which is the cause of much merriment among their offspring. Their spouses have always coped by consuming an astronomical number of G & Ts and smoking like chimneys at social events.

            • demidaemon

              I feel bad for their spouses. No one should have to punish their livers like that just to survive preppy-assholedom.

            • Lisa M. (ReVoir) Kramp

              ‘Kittenrazzi’. I love you, MilaXX.

            • bitchybitchybitchy

              I love that, too. I picture the Kittenrazzi with their fingers poised over phone, tablet, laptop, whatever, ready to render judgment.

            • formerlyAnon

              Yup. I have ridiculously intransigent opinions on the look. Or “feels” as I am too old to say unironically.

            • sk8tfan

              I can’t help but recoil at the thought of the smell.

            • MilaXX

              But not everyone’s feet sweat when they go sockless. Mine don’t.

            • sk8tfan

              you’ll have to donate your feet to science in your will.

            • demidaemon

              I have no problem with women going sockless. It’s men going sockless that I have problems with. Unless they are wearing sandals.

          • alyce1213

            I disagree there. IMO, sockless is worse with lace-up oxfords, which is too traditional (formal?). Sockless is for loafers, slips ons, deck shoes — casual.

            • Chuck Barthelme

              Anyone here read The Sartorialist? I feel like he is always posting pictures of well dressed guys wearing suits or formal wear with oxfords and sans socks. Check out the archives and then scroll through the pictures of men.

            • alyce1213

              I’m familiar with the blog, I’ve visited several times and I like it. But if he’s promoting no socks with suits or formal wear, I can’t agree with his taste. It just looks disconnected and wrong to me,

            • Chuck Barthelme

              He doesn’t really promote anything- just takes shots of interesting looking people on the street. I’m a fan of the sockless look when done right. I do think a lot of people get it wrong though, which might be partly why so many people are against it. But to each their own.

            • alyce1213

              Truth. (I guess by “promoting” I meant choosing to show those looks.” Wrong word.)

        • conniemd

          No socks with a tuxedo is just chalkboard screechy. With jeans or khaki’s okay, but not when you’re wearing the max male dress-up outfit.

        • Rhonda Shore

          The bad contouring make-up on the guy on the right is setting me off more than the lack of socks.

          • 3boysful

            Even over the Something About Mary hair?

            • Rhonda Shore

              that’s a close second!!!

          • onefifteen

            I agree! He looks like a mannequin.

        • Inspector_Gidget

          Never will like standard-looking dress shoes with no socks. Seems half-assed in the best of cases. But here, it draws attention right to their ankles, and their awkward pigeon-toed stances. Do they have bunions or a strain or something?

        • alyce1213

          No socks are okay (JUST okay) with casual clothing. NEVER NEVER NEVER with a tuxedo, business suit, or anything formal.

      • j_am

        Agree, the polka dotted jacket is fantastic.

      • MilaXX


      • Carly Clement

        It seems like from waist up it looks good… but waist down… terrible!!! and bad shoes!

    • Laura Renee

      Oof. ::cringes:: Why the hell did forgoing socks ever seem like just the right fashion touch?

      And I love the awkward way they’re leaning toward each other, but not actually touching.

      • DebbieLovesShoes

        I find myself leaning to the right to counterbalance this picture.

      • Kent Roby

        I think that their heads are actually gelled together.

    • moppet

      Aw, they look’s not so….well. They both look nice around the facial area. Clotheswise they need some work. Like maybe an iron, for starters. Also, are they standing on a particularly tilted part of the sidewalk?

      • halleygee

        I was more distracted by their stance than by what they were wearing there for a sec… it’s like the weight of their hair is pulling them towards one another.

        • DebbieLovesShoes

          Haha. ^ This. Yeah.

        • schadenfreudelicious

          it appears their hair has its own gravitational pull….

      • mellorcr

        I was gonna say “With that face, how can you even notice the clothes”, but then I scrolled down!

    • DebbieLovesShoes

      Looking at their hair is giving me a headache. Is that the style? All I can think of is “Bob’s Big Boy”.

    • dmkava


    • Kiltdntiltd

      Overplayed boys. Mightily overplayed. from the too much product to the too much everything else.

    • Janet B

      That’s some awkward posing.
      The almost matching is as bad as matching.

    • DoctorBelle

      Is Jeremiah real or borrowed from Madame toussad’s? He looks decidedly waxy.

      • Darcy H

        Glad I scrolled down because I was JUST about to make a “Nate dear it’s not nice to steal from Madame Toussad’s” remark.

      • Vaniljekjeks

        Spot on! I’m like, crying at this comment.

      • barbarienne

        Yes! Is that just really smooth makeup? Did he have dermabrasion? I would say he’s photoshopped except Mr. Berkus’s face looks pretty normal, and it would be weird just to P’shop one person in a two-shot.

        ETA: Mr. Brent is danged pretty, though. I mean that with admiration.

        • formerlyAnon

          IMO, Mr. Brent is waaaaay too pretty. But then, my opinion on the matter is not relevant. Mine are not the bleachers to which he is playing.

          • demidaemon

            I agree that he is too pretty. That kind of face always makes me think the person has no depth. In other words, you have a lot to prove personality wise if you are on the too pretty side of the fence for either sex.

    • Jessica Freeman

      I am seriously in love with Nate’s jacket though. But the rolled up pants with patent shoes and no socks? NO. OMG. A million Nos.

      • DebbieLovesShoes


    • smayer

      Stank foot!

    • In_Stitches

      You don’t break up a tuxedo, especially to pair it with formal pants that don’t match. Go for the high/low look if you’re going to attempt it. And for someone so into design, you’d think he’d realize cuffing his pants so aggressively is giving him thick thighs…

    • Vanja

      I thought it was bad when I saw the matching jackets, white shirt and bow ties…. and then I scrolled down.
      Wow. Matching shiny shoes without socks. Even the slouching stance is the same. Tssk.

      • alyce1213

        ?? Their jackets don’t match (different fabric and lapel style). Their pants don’t match either, nor do the shoes, except they’re both slip-ons.
        Yes, the bow ties, shirts, hair poofs, and body language do.

        • Vanja

          Both jackets have a deep V-shape created by a one button. “Their pants don’t match either” Yes, I noticed that too, that’s why I didn’t mention it. The shoes both have (almost) the same shape around the instep. Disregarding all that and the bow ties, shirts, hair poofs, sock-less feet and body language, they don’t dress alike at all. 😉

    • ojosazules

      Pelt them with socks.

      • Alloy Jane

        Oh good, now I’m imagining these two men, freshly wed, running off the church steps while the crowd around them tosses socks instead of rice.

    • bessann28

      The only thing worse than bad clothing is wrinkly, ill-fitting clothing. And the lack of socks with formal wear– is this a thing? Please say this is not a thing.

    • Sally

      Shave. Put on socks.

    • MilaXX

      bwaaaahhhh! It looks like something from Will & Grace. I know they are in lurve, but this is corny.

    • JauntyJohn

      It’s hard sometimes with the A List Gays. Everything is just… so… “Too.”
      Still, I am suspect of my reaction as it may be tinged with just a wee bit of jealousy. (Just a wee bit!)
      Everything fits and they are well styled. Mr. Berkus is 5’9″ tall (thanks, Google!) so they just about qualify as pocket gays.
      Which makes this kind of adorable I guess, in the end.

      • MilaXX

        I’ve seen Nate in person. Google is lying. Homeboy is 5’8″ with good shoes on & probably closer to 5’7″. He is tiny.

        • demidaemon

          Everyone her saying 5’7″ is tiny is making my 5’2″ self feel like a little person.

          • MilaXX

            For a guy that’s short, but Nate is also Hollywood skinny. I’m only 5’3″ myself.

            • demidaemon

              I understand the tiny comment a bit better now. Thanks. :)

    • Danielle

      MY KINGDOM FOR SOME SOCKS. Someone tell Nate he can buy them at Target, a few aisles over from his home décor line.

      • Shawn EH

        Loafers don’t really require socks. I’m more worried about the pants and cutesy blazers.

        • alyce1213

          I disagree — worn with a Tuxedo, loafers do require socks, it’s formal wear. No socks with loafers is fine for casual wear.

          • Shawn EH

            Don’t tuxedos also require matching trousers?

            • alyce1213

              I don’t know, my personal style jury is out on that, and I really have no idea what men’s fashion ‘experts’ have to say. These trousers don’t bother me so much because they don’t jump out as a contrasting color, the non-match is subtle and not glaring. I think you’re probably right on an official level, but it doesn’t bother me as much as going sockless in dress shoes when formal.

            • Shawn EH

              I guess I’m saying if this was supposed to be formal, they’ve failed by juhzzing it up with too casual details all over: fit, cuffs, pattern hair etc.

    • Noah

      I feel so awkward looking at this. From the clothes to the no socks to the posing, this is just Grade-A Uncomfortable.

    • TrixieConQueso

      So much R-E-S-P-E-C-T for the Uncles for not falling for Chin Dimples and Dat Sexy “Nate-Gaze Effect” and calling them out for the StyleFAIL. I am sure that we will NEVER need that van and chloroform.

    • Valdri8

      Did they meet in “Affected Posture 101″?

    • msdamselfly

      Except for the socklessness, I think they both look very handsome

      • DebbieLovesShoes

        You’re okay with Nate’s neckbeard? Ew.

    • SewingSiren

      Not as embarrassing as Johnny Depp and his daught,,,,r…I mean fiancé.

    • Michael_Jones

      In formal, I don’t mind when a male-male couple looks like they’re similarly dressed — it’s hard, given limited options in formal wear, for men not to look like they’re dressed alike. The concept of no socks, particularly combined with rolled hem pants, in formal wear, however, is something that I can never forgive.

      • marlie

        I agree. Aside from the annoying pant hems, I like that they compliment each others’ looks.

    • NBG

      Ummmm, no. You’re both naturally adorable. There’s no need to resort to this. Let’s try being grown-ups on the RC and cutesy at home.

      • Constant Reader

        Yes! The matching rolled up pants and bow ties would be just fine with matching smoking jackets for a cozy brunch at home.

    • Mary Lauer

      Scroll down FUG. Kinda like the faces, sharp jackets, and then just NO! Loafers and bare ankles and pants rolled up?! Just NO!

    • lexilexi

      Can’t help it. They’re adorable.

    • kimmeister

      Holy cow, that Jeremiah guy is purty!

    • @Biting Panda


      • Shibori Girl

        First belly laugh of my day. Thanks for that spot on assessment!

    • Patrick Cleary

      The no socks thing kills it. The matching hair is kind of ooky, but lots of guy couples do that.

    • Anna

      Cute faces. Weird-ass posing. I do like Nate’s jacket.

    • Glam Dixie

      God, the pants rolled up, bare ankles with loafers thing is such a try-hard silly affectation. I hate it. He’s cute though.

    • Frank_821

      Well it was fine from the waist up and Jeremiah is insanely handsome. too bad

    • Jessica

      The shoes hurt my eyes! Both of them…ugh.

    • alytoyou

      Fine. Until I saw the feet.

    • Shibori Girl

      Twee. ( that is not a compliment.)

    • Eric Stott

      From the waist up they’re kinda adorkable – but the ankles are a real needle scratch moment.

    • Highland Fashionista

      How are they standing? they look really uncomfortable. It HAS to be those pants.

    • BobStPaul

      Aside from the too short pants and no socks they look perfectly fine.

    • histrogeek

      Was there some kind of flooding this week in New York?

    • stlellen

      That polka dot jacket is everything.

    • Ediths_Head

      Are their feet bound?

    • ashtangajunkie

      J’adore Nate’s jacket and Jeremiah is so pretty I could cry. That bone structure is worthy of my tears. But yeah – what the shit are they wearing?

    • butterflysunita

      Doesn’t Nate Berkus give style advice? Oof.

      • demidaemon

        I’m pretty sure he only gives decor advice. Take that as you will.

    • NMMagpie

      What the hell?

    • xmixiex

      Youch! I think they look great waist up. The bottom half is problematic.

    • Lilah

      I’m generally ok with Nate’s attire, but I can’t get past Jeremiah’s rolled up pants with no socks.

    • Morales Mike

      And what is up with them both doing a slightly pigeon-toed “I’m a lost little girl” pose with their feet?! Although I must say, the blonde’s hair and face…wow. And his jacket appears to fit really well.

    • YoungSally

      Twee — Saw Berkus running around Greenwich Village last Tuesday or Friday (can’t remember) — no idea what he was doing —but it involved minions.

    • ChiKat67

      Jeremiah (late of the Rachel Zoe Project if I’m not mistaken), if you INSIST on cuffing your trousers (which are in dire need of ironing), please don’t half-ass the attempt.

    • jonnyf8

      thank you! I’ve been so mad ever since I saw that Banana Republic campaign with them in it. I almost cut up my card in disgust

    • Shawn EH

      The dark side of matchy-matchy.

    • Bert Keeter

      BOYS…Both of you need to buy AND use shoe trees! Also if you want to do the “I’m cool in my dinner jacket w/jeans” look…loosen up or loose the tie. This ain’t working!

    • susan6

      Scrolldown fug at its worst. Wow. And they’re both so pretty!

    • Gatto Nero

      The rolled-up pant is giving Brent stumpy leg.
      Berkus fussed way too much with his hair.
      And they look weirdly uncomfortable here.

    • CallMeJane

      That’s a scroll down fug if ever there was a scroll down fug. And it just gets worse the longer you look at it!

    • Daktari100

      Finally, everyone is as annoyed with Nate Berkus as I have been for years. Never could stand him.

    • crash1212

      This is the king of scroll down fugs. I was totally on board with both looks until I hit the ankles. Seriously boys…not cute.

    • DominoEstella

      this is “gay hipster”

    • uprightcitizen

      Scroll down WTF. Tuxedos without socks, and rolled up pants? Plus, dorky poses. Such nonsense from two extremely handsome guys. Put on some socks, fit those pants better, and stand like a grown up. And then I can admire you both longingly, as things should be.

    • webslice33

      that Jeremiah Brent is so handsome I could forgive him for his sloppy pants…

    • Eva_baby

      I got too distracted by the beam of light projecting from Jeremiah’s forehead. I am dying to take a blotting tissue to him.

    • kipper

      For the sake of gays everywhere let’s at least hope that heavy drugs were involved….

    • Sara Hottman

      I don’t understand the tux-y top with beach feet.

    • marlie

      I hate, hate, hate boyfriend’s highwater tuxedo pants. And he looks way too much like a wax doll. I *do* like his bowtie, though. I LOVE Nate’s jacket, but the overall look is ruined by the lack of socks (with *these* pants), the weird slouch, and the scruffy face/neck.

    • MannahattaMamma

      Is it my imagination or does the fiancee look stoned out of his gourd? I’m sort of hoping that he IS stoned b/c that’s the only way to explain the trouser-shoe combo. Plus they are going to have the stankiest expensive loafers in town later on. Phew.

    • VioletFem

      They look like Ken dolls.

    • YourBaloneyDontGotNoSecondName

      You just know they are wearing matching thongs from International Male.

    • B_C_J

      They are two handsome men who generally have good taste. However they made some mistakes: Nate: hair is a bit big – almost cartoonish. The polka dot jacket is gorgeous but too long for his height. You NEVER wear business/day loafers when wearing black tie. Jeremiah: gorgeous everything but poorly rolled up pants that have been raised above the ankle bone are obnoxious. I can deal with no socks in summertime as long as the party is not at the White House or the Élysée palace

    • Lisa M. (ReVoir) Kramp

      The no socks don’t bother me on Nate…they do on his fiance. The fact that they’re so obviously baked/sozzled and barely upright in front of the paps annoys me know end. Celebs who WANT to show up on the tabloids shit-faced are the worst kind of attention whores, IMO.

    • Wink

      Ditto on everything said here! Waist up is great; waist down is tragic.

    • boweryboy

      Looking at this makes me embarassed to be gay.
      The too much skin showing stank feet scrolldown is a HUGE needle scratch. That Thom Browne look only works on the runway or on Thom Browne (and just barely in his case).
      It doesn’t help that it looks like they got caught having sex and threw on their clothes as quickly as possible. The blond guy is a big wrinkled mess and looks like he grabbed some one else’s pants altogether.

    • Ashleigh

      That guy doesn’t love Nate. I can see it.

      • Gatto Nero

        They don’t look at ease together, do they.

    • Aurumgirl

      No socks and patent leather shoes. Hand cuffed (not properly hemmed) trousers. It’s like a personal affront.

    • Let it out

      I like it – they look like cute young things having a good time. Sorry, not sorry!

    • Froggae

      They sure are purty though. Sigh.

    • decormaven

      Dress shoes, dress jackets and no socks? That will never compute.

    • Lilithcat

      Well, I can’t wait for the Met Costume Institute Gala, for which Anna Wintour has declared that men should wear white tie:

      • Alloy Jane

        Oh, if she makes it mandatory, I’m willing to forgive her KK transgression. As in, “white tie or go home.” And why are they acting like it’s so hard to find tails? That’s just drama.

    • Ginmaru

      I’m thinking this is an epic “Walk of Shame” look. Those aren’t their pants, the socks are over the chandelier and the loafers on the right are some lady’s shoes.

    • ThaliaMenninger

      On the way out of Club 54 one morning, after rising from the sticky floor, brushing the coke off my lapels and insisting on tying my tie in the cracked bathroom mirror, my boyfriend and I took to the streets… “Bonfire of the Manatees”

      • Ginmaru

        You said this soooooo much better than I did!

    • Betsy

      Gross. Even straight people do this sometimes and it is not ok.

    • sippiambrose

      They have the same hands. Wrinkly pants are unforgivable. Sockless is okay with a casual look but not with serious evening wear. Trying too hard always makes my teeth itch.

    • Alloy Jane

      Lord those shoes, they look like jelly beans. Shouldn’t one of them have their hand up the other’s ass? Those looks read “ventriloquist and dummy” but I can’t tell which is which.

    • somebody blonde

      That is entirely too much hair product.

    • AC Simons

      The anti-TLo!! You would never go out in this kind of stuff. Just too precious by half, and these guys are getting a bit too old for this, n’est pas?

    • alyce1213

      Everything between their foreheads and ankles is all very good, but boy, do those hair poofs and sockless feet ruin these classic looks. Such nice looking boys, it’s a shame.

    • Valdri8

      Contrapposto Douchery is a great name for a rock band

    • NurseEllen

      If Nate had put on socks, shaved, and washed some of that gunk out of his hair, he would look OK. I like the patterned jacket and I like the tassel loafers. Jeremiah, however, is a hot mess and should simply be awarded a “do over”, as we used to say in elementary school gym.

    • The Versatile Chef

      For some reason, I want them to break into the “Moses Supposes” number from “Singin’ in the Rain”.

    • ktr33

      I was all like, “that’s not SO bad,” till I saw the full-length pix! Yikes! And I’m not anti-no socks, but the shoes are dumb and Brent’s pants just look like old-fashioned dorky highwaters.

    • formerlyAnon

      It is grounds to break an engagement to appear in public formally dressed but attired from the knees down as is Mr. Brent.

      Though he does have lovely ankles.

      Is that “strolling surfside in my formal attire” a thing, now?

    • YourBaloneyDontGotNoSecondName

      You just know they wear matching Speedos and matching sailor’s caps on the Atlantis cruise, with that little blue anchor patch.

    • The Gifted Collector

      I dearly love Nate Berkus and would be so disappointed if he were to be involved in any kind of a scandal. However, those pants and sockless dress shoes are bordering on scandalous in my fashion book.

    • Leah Elzinga

      holy crap, it’s like the boy (because “man” doesn’t factor in here at all) version of the “little girl who has to pee” pose! wth?!

    • suzq

      We’re wearing our jackets too tight and now our pants too short….DON’T YOU KNOW IT’S ALL A CONSPIRACY TO MAKE YOU PAY MORE FOR LESS CLOTHING????

      Insist on clothes that fit.

      Ok…play with your pant length if you must, but make sure that hem is impeccable and doesn’t look like something someone tacked on in the cab on the way over.

    • formerlyAnon

      He MADE that way. ON PURPOSE. You can see that they’re rolled.


      • SierraDelta

        A preppy-entitled-asshole affectation, in my experience.

      • demidaemon

        I missed that on my original pass on thought it was just bad hemming. Having been corrected by everyone else’s eyes, I hereby call him preppy douche.

    • bitchybitchybitchy

      Uncles, I have every confidence that you would nevah, evah appear in public like this. Should that happen, rest assured that your devoted BK’s will take corrective action, stat.

    • LeelaST

      Give them socks and properly tailored pants and they would look killah!

    • Elizabeth Phillips

      And I will never understand stubble with a tux-type outfit. If you’re dressed up, it’s clean-shaven or real beard. I’m old-fashioned that way.

    • enchanted216

      But they have such fabulous hair!!

    • Jacob Bowen

      OH MY GOSH! I WANT THAT POLKA DOT JACKET SO BADLY!!! I’m also semi-jealous of the volume they both can get with their hair!

    • LadyVimes

      Hate the shiny shoes. Hate the awkward pant length on Mr. Brent. Hate the way they both look like they’re going to fall over.

    • icm

      As soon as I saw the first picture I thought this was a shoot for a tuxedo rental place, then I scrolled a bit more and saw the whole no socks and realized NO! I thought that no sock with dress shoes died. It was always stupid looking to me.

    • Lulu

      Ugh. Nate, please shave and lose the Gumby-inspired hairdo. Jeremiah, what’s with the floods?

    • Judih1

      I think this is a look for a “younger” couple – especially the no sock look

    • Clash D

      I literally gaped in horror for a good 10 seconds.

    • ShaoLinKitten

      The guy on the right (Jeremiah Brent?) looks so… shiny. Like a mannequin. Very pretty, though that outfit is ridic.

    • cocohall

      Were they attending a tribute to Glee’s Chris Colfer and Darren Criss? They are both really cute fellas, but both a bit old (especially Nate) to work this look. I don’t mind the no socks. I know I’m in the minority. ‘sides, I have soft spot for Nate Berkus. Glad he has found love again after he lost his partner in the tsunami.

    • cheekypinky

      I can smell those stanky bare feet from here.

    • altalinda

      Not what you’ll be wearing to Emmett’s party?

    • quiltrx

      But, HAIR. Fabulous, run your fingers through it hair. You can crop the rest away, and make the hair the happy focus.
      I do like that dotted jacket.

    • demidaemon

      That is some shitty ass hemming on both of them. One is too short and the other is too long. And I will never get behind the no-socks with dress shoes look. NO.

    • Mousentrude

      I was more than happy with them from the thighs up, but weird-length wrinkly trousers, no socks and shiny shoes? Eww.

      • Amel

        Yes, much scroll-down disappointment occurred

    • kategs

      It’s their schlumphy stances that are irritating me.. Stand up straight, sell it and knock off the cutesy.

    • Michelle Gennari

      Ventriloquist dummies