Entertainment Celebrity
  • Facebook
    Facebook
  • Twitter
    Twitter
  • Pinterest
    Pinterest
  • +
  • Linkedin
    Linkedin
  • WhatsApp
    WhatsApp
  • Email
    Email
SHARE THIS
  • Facebook
    Facebook
  • Twitter
    Twitter
  • Pinterest
    Pinterest
  • Linkedin
    Linkedin
  • WhatsApp
    WhatsApp
  • Email
    Email

At the Brit Awards last Wednesday, Ed Sheeran sparked speculation that he and fiancée Cherry Seaborn had secretly tied the knot when he was spotted wearing a silver wedding-type band on his left ring finger. There had also been reports of him wearing such a ring at an earlier concert. When he was asked on the red carpet if there had been a secret wedding, the singer told ITV that it was an engagement ring.

“I never saw why men didn’t wear engagement rings,” Sheeran said, “It’s the same commitment either way. Cherry made it for me herself out of silver clay. I really like it. I haven’t told anyone that, either.”

That sent fans fawning over the couple and Ed’s sweetness all over again. He’s wearing an engagement ring! That she made him! Hearts melted. The bar was raised. Ed Sheeran was declared perfect.

The ring also started an interesting debate about whether men should start wearing engagement rings and if this was going to become a trend. In an interesting turn-around, this whole thing was taken from Ed Sheeran defying a gender norm because he feels like it, to people posing the question of if men will be wearing “man-gagement” rings now. What? The word “engagement” was never gendered to begin with, why does it need a “man” prefix? This is “bro-ga” and “bro-gurt” all over again.

Wear a ring or don’t wear a ring. The weirdest thing going on here is people once again attributing gender distinctions to inanimate objects. Yes, traditionally engagement rings are worn by women but they were never called “woman-gagement” rings. Let’s chill with the gender prefixes, people.