There are many reasonable questions to ask before having sex with someone: whether that person has been tested, if they want to have sex, what they are into.

How many people they've slept with is not one of them.

Not only is this question invasive, but it is also loaded with assumptions about socially acceptable expressions of sexuality. Not surprisingly, these assumptions ultimately judge women more harshly than men.

You know the double standard that men who have sex are studs and women who do the same thing are sluts? That's the logic at play here. The person asking wants to know how to quantify someone's sexual experience and therefore determine their sexual worth and value.

Their "number" is none of your business

A loaded question necessitates a loaded answer: someone's number is either deemed too low (inexperienced i.e. incompetent) or too high (slutty i.e. "un-dateable.") But too low or too high in comparison to what exactly? Everyone has a different number they consider to be a "normal" amount of sexual partners, as well as different relationships with sex and intimacy. So we should not be asking what is normal, but rather whodecides what counts as "normal."

Unfortunately, normality seems to be prescribed by women's magazines, unreliable polling and outdated social expectations.

Comparing numbers is a common way to figure out if you are "advancing" at the same rate as your friends. This unhealthy dynamic plays out both in real life and onscreen in television and film, from Friends to Sex and the City to the movie literally titled What's Your Number? A "normal" number is usually based on an average, and the problem with averages is that they exclude and stigmatize outliers on both ends of the spectrum. Those with very few sexual partners end up feeling equally condemned as those who are slut shamed for having many.

What is virginity, anyway?

The question may seem straightforward, and its logic awful in an equally straightforward way. It is no surprise, then, that plenty of people agree that the number does not matter or define who you are. However, if you really think about it, the number is not only irrelevant, but the question itself is illogical. Its premise is pure bullshit. In order to answer the question, both parties must be in agreement about what constitutes sex.

The way that society defines "sex" is usually quite narrow and heteronormative. Sex usually refers to sexual intercourse, or penis-in-vagina penetration, between a man and a woman. This definition is bound up in a patriarchal obsession with virginity.Since a hymen is not a measure of virginity (because, science), virginity is actually a social construct grounded in heterosexuality and religious traditions that value women as little more than property and child-bearers. This centuries-old emphasis on sex as strictly for baby-making and not for pleasure results in non-procreative sex, such as oral and anal, coming with qualifiers.

Accepting the concept of virginity implies that non-heterosexual sex, or sex acts besides penis-in-vagina penetration, do not "count" or are not considered "real" sex. By this logic, people not having this type of sex are technically considered virgins, discounting a wide range of LGBTQ sexuality.

It makes no sense that having "sex" constitutes a notch in your bedpost, but oral sex does not, even though both are extremely intimate. In this respect, your "number" is not even an accurate representation of sexual experience. If we assume that the question is valid in its aim to establish someone's sexual prowess, the operative definition of sex prevents any answer that is truly representative of someone's sexual history.

By asking someone's number, you miss out on the important questions.

For example, a person who has only had one long term relationship could easily have had sex dozens of times more than someone who has had a handful of one night stands. Similarly, someone who has done "everything but" multiple times is more experienced than someone who has had sex once. Not only does "what's your number" further sexist stereotypes, but it does not even provide an accurate answer to the question really being asked: how experienced are you?

Sex is not a numbers game

Focusing on a singular type of sex can cheapen the significance of relationships or sexual experiences that occur outside of these narrow parameters. Some of my more memorable and meaningful relationships have been with people with whom I did not have traditional sex. Hell, some of my best sexual experiences and discoveries have been all by myself. Turning sex into a numbers game automatically makes it a competition, complete with winners and losers. "Stats" tell you nothing about who someone is as a sexual partner or as a person.

More from HuffPost Canada:

• Men Aren't Good Enough In Bed, And Women Should Speak Up
• I'm A Sugar Baby. Here's What It's Like To Date A Sugar Daddy
• Consent Doesn't Ever Resemble The Phrase 'I Guess'

By asking someone's number, you miss out on the important questions: if they are in touch with their sexuality, whether they are a communicative and respectful partner, how comfortable they are with fulfilling your desires. Sexuality is not quantifiable, so why bother counting?

This article was originally published on Bellesa.

Follow HuffPost Canada Blogs on Facebook

Also on HuffPost:

After the onslaught of makeup designs for Halloween, the new holiday season welcomes a more festive batch of looks.

This season's trend features different variations of Santa Claus being placed on the eyebrow. From dyeing your brows, to that famous red and white hat being elaborately drawn on, makeup lovers are raving about this trend.

This month has brought out the festive creative in all of us. The looks vary from Jeffree Star's green wig in his holiday makeup tutorial, neon electric winged liners from Shaniah Bell, Christmas tree brows, bauble brows, the candy cane cut crease from Cassisel, and now the Santa hat trend.

A post shared by lita brow boutique (@litabrowboutique) on Nov 13, 2017 at 5:43pm PST

The trend comes in various forms, from the Santa hat being placed above the brow, to a tinted brow with a white cotton ball on the end, to a glittery fest on the eyelid.

A post shared by D⃣anielle C⃣hacon (@dani3___) on Dec 16, 2017 at 7:58am PST

Makeup fanatics looking to recreate the look can use products such as NYX Cosmetics red glitter and white gel liner, Anastasia Beverly Hills angled brush, the Mehron Paradise ProPalette, DUO lash glue, cotton balls, as well as the Anastasia Beverly Hills "American Doll" liquid lipstick.

Christmas Inspired Look 🌲 Makeup Details Below 👇 Eyebrows: @anastasiabeverlyhills Dipbrow Pomade In Soft Brown Eyeshadow: Sephora Pro Palette "Editoral" Eyeliner: @anastasiabeverlyhills American Doll But Any Matte Red Liquid Lipstick Will Do 😘 Glitter: Green Glitter From Micheals And @nyxcosmetics Crystal body Liner In Gold Lashes: @dodolashes THE END 💞 #makeup#makeupaddict#makeupjunkie#cutcrease#christmas#christmasmakeup#santahatmakeup#redeyeliner#glitter#nyxcosmeticsfans#undiscovered_muas#greeneyeshadow#follow#like#newig#beauty#christmasaf#red#green#glitter

A post shared by L I N D S E Y 🌹 (@beautybylindseymarie) on Dec 13, 2017 at 3:03pm PST

The trend is currently spreading across Instagram as makeup lovers on the social app give it their own spin.

Also on HuffPost:

The Congress has demanded that Prime Minister Narendra Modi apologise to former PM Manmohan Singh, whom he accused of conspiring with Pakistan to influence the outcome of the Gujarat Assembly elections. However, after a joint meeting between members of the government and the opposition it seems an apology isn't immediately forthcoming from Modi, according to reports.

"I think the PM's stature will not be diminished if he clarifies and regrets because Manmohan Singh is also a member of the House. Why should he stand on falsehood? Either he should prove there was something wrong or he should take his words back to convey his regret to Singh," deputy leader of opposition in Rajya Sabha Anand Sharma said.

However, The Hindu reported that the government clearly conveyed its decision during the meeting, in which Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ananth Kumar were present, that no apology will be issued for Modi's accusation of treason, which he made on 11 December, without providing any evidence.

While addressing a rally in Gujarat, the PM referred to a meeting at suspended Congress leader Mani Shankar Aiyar's house, attended by some Pakistani officials, Singh and former vice-president Hamid Ansari, among others, in which he claimed a conspiracy was hatched to way-lay the Gujarat polls.

The same Mani Shankar Aiyar, who insulted Gujarat, held secret meetings with Pakistan High Commissioner. What was the reason? Why are people who previously held high posts in military-intelligence establishment of Pak writing that we should help make Ahmed Patel the CM?: PM Modi pic.twitter.com/lc9G57NlKI

— ANI (@ANI) December 10, 2017

The Congress has not let the winter session function since Parliament convened on 15 December, demanding that the government either apologise or clarify the PM's comments. Chairman of Rajya Sabha, Venkaiah Naidu, had tried to broker peace between the two sides and asked them to resolve the issue amicably. Congress staged a walkout from the Lok Sabha (lower house) yesterday after Speaker Sumitra Mahajan did not allow them to raise the issue.

In the upper house, Leader of the opposition, Ghulam Nabi Azad, said Singh's "integrity and loyalty to the country had been questioned".

Singh had earlier said that he was "deeply pained and anguished by the falsehood and canards being spread to score political points in a lost cause by none less than Prime Minister Narendra Modi."

"Modi is setting a dangerous precedent by his insatiable desire to tarnish every constitutional office, including that of a former prime minister and Army chief," Singh said.

The contentious meeting that Modi referred to in his election speech was held on 6 December at Aiyar's house and attended by Pakistan's former foreign affairs minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri, former Indian Army chief Deepak Kapoor, former foreign minister K Natwar Singh, and former diplomats Salman Haidar, TCA Raghavan, among others, an Indian Express report found.

At least five of those present in the meeting told Express that it had nothing to do with domestic politics.

Access to naturally grown forest produce would go a long way in protecting tribal communities in Odisha from the worst impacts of climate change and supply them with all that they need for sustenance

By Basudev Mahapatra*, Rayagada, Odisha

Sunamai Mambalaka, a Kondh tribal woman in her 50s, is not bothered about the vulnerability of cultivated crops to climate change. She believes that she and her community will never experience hunger as long as the forest, their perennial source of food, exists. "I was born in the forest, I grew with the forest. Forest is our life and soul," she said.

To the Kondh community living in Tada village of Rayagada district in Odisha, the forest adjacent to their village has remained the source of food, nutrition and livelihood since generations. Recent studies confirm that forests not only meet the nutritional needs of the communities, but also would play an important role in helping them face vagaries of nature and achieve some of the sustainable development goals.

Perennial food source

"We are never short of food because the forest has plenty to offer us," 40-year-old Kalia Mambalaka told VillageSquare.in. According to Padmavati Paleka of Leling Padar village, they get a variety of mushrooms, tender bamboo shoots, fruits like custard apple and several kinds of leaves and edible insects during the rainy season.

"Honey and many tubers are harvested throughout the year," Paleka told VillageSquare.in. While some tubers are harvested during winter, the food items specific to summer include leaves and fruits of mango, kendu, jackfruit, amla, bel and tamarind among others. Except rice, the staple food of Odisha, as 35-year-old Biswanath Sarakka puts it, "Three fourth of the rest of our food comes from the forests."

The average daily intake of uncultivated forest food ranges between 12% and 24.4% of the total cooked foods, according to a study by Living farms that promotes agro-ecology as the foundation of food security and sovereignty. The study was carried out in Rayagada and Balangir districts, with predominant forest-dependent tribal population.

Key source of nutrition

Conducted in collaboration with Basudha Biotechnology Laboratory for Conservation, the team of scientists led by ecologist and champion of traditional rice Debal Deb studied the link between the biodiversity and ecology of the forest to availability of food items. "This is the first time that we have studied the nutritional properties of available wild foods," Deb told VillageSquare.in. "It's not just about food security, but about nutrition as well."

For example, edible leaves such as gandheri sag and ambgili sag available in the forest have very high content of pro-vitamin A (Beta Carotene), anti-oxidants and soluble protein. The research found that the leaves are rich in digestible iron, zinc and manganese as well.

Some of the tubers and mushrooms also have high iron, zinc, vitamins and anti-oxidant content that are vital for nutritional security. "We found that the households consuming about 20% of their cooked food from the forest have no signs of malnutrition," Deb said, urging for further studies with quantification of data.

Critical for future food security

Being such storehouses of food with rich nutritional value makes forests critical for future food safety. According to Deb, the forest species are more resilient to climate change than any of the cultivated crops, thus assuring the villagers of nutritional security.

While mentioning that forests are fundamental for food security and improved livelihoods, State of the World's Forests (SOFO) 2016 released by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) notes, "The forests of the future will increase the resilience of communities by providing food, wood energy, shelter, fodder and fiber; generating income and employment to allow communities and societies to prosper; and harboring biodiversity."

SOFO 2016 also highlights that, given their multi-functionality, forests can play significant roles in achieving about six of the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) targets set by the UN. Such contributions are usually poorly reflected in national development and food security strategies. Coupled with poor coordination between stakeholder sectors, forests are mostly left out of policy decisions related to food security and nutrition, FAO observes.

Concerns

Forest foods are in high demand in haats or tribal community markets and nearby rural markets. Forest produce such as honey, amla and several fruits are in great demand in urban malls. Though this may appear as an opportunity for economic empowerment of the tribal communities, this may lead to degradation of the forests, hampering availability. "When there's greater density, diversity of tree species and basal area (total base area of trees in the forests), the availability of food, not only plants but also animals, is much higher," Deb told VillageSquare.in.

Though total forest cover in Odisha has increased from 48,903 sq. km in 2011 to 50,354 sq. km in 2015 as per the State of Forest Report, Odisha, very dense forest (VDF) and moderately dense forest (MDF) in the traditional forest boundaries have come down from 7,060 sq. km to 6,763 sq. km and 21,366 sq. km to 19,791 sq. km, respectively.

The other threat is from commercial monoculture plantation on forestland under afforestation and social forestry programs. According to FAO, monoculture plantation totally affects the organic productivity and reduces the natural stability of the soil. "The forest department wanted to plant eucalyptus in our forest land. We didn't allow," 52-year-old Landi Sikoka of Khalpadar village told VillageSquare.in. "We plant trees of our choice in the forest periodically."

Way ahead

"For the tribal communities, forest is not just a source of food, but it's also a part of their identity," Debjeet Sarangi of the Living Farms told VillageSquare.in. "Tribes such as the Kondhs' way of life is respectful of others including nature and recognizes diversity in its different manifestations." The tribal community's relationship with the forest is one of belonging rather than ownership.

Community forest management is good for the health of the forests. When local users have long-term rights to harvest from the forests, they are more likely to monitor and sanction those who break the rules, resulting in better forest conditions, according to Nobel laureate economist, the late Elinor Ostrom, who advocated for common rights over land and forest.

The study conducted by Living Farms corroborates the theory. According to the study, ecosystem of the forest is likely to be much improved in terms of number of tree species, density and food availability, when managed by the communities. "Forest gives us food, fodder, firewood and everything we require," Sunamai Mambalaka told VillageSquare.in. "It's our god, our mother."

Basudev Mahapatra is a journalist based in Bhubaneshwar. Views are personal.

This article was first published on VillageSquare.in, a public-interest communications platform focused on rural India.

(The opinions expressed in this post are the personal views of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of HuffPost India. Any omissions or errors are the author's and HuffPost India does not assume any liability or responsibility for them.)

The newfound interest in the cultivation of bamboo, known as the wise man's timber, is helping transform the rural economy in the Konkan region of Maharashtra by boosting farm incomes

By Hiren Kumar Bose*, Sindhudurg, Maharashtra

Nestled among fields of mango, cashew, coconut and areca palms, and dotted with houses roofed with Mangalore tiles in between, bamboo vies for attention at the Pinguli village in Kudal taluk. Grown in homesteads till now, it has started making its presence felt in farm plots as well. The scene is similar in Kolgaon, Hirlok, Ranbumbuli and Konal villages, all in different administrative divisions of the Sindhudurg district.

In these villages, bamboo supplements the farm income of those who have decided to stay back and continue farming rather than migrate to cities in search of livelihood. The farm landscape is slowly changing. Known for coastal fisheries and Alphonso mangoes, villages in Kankavli, Kudal, Sawantwadi, Vengurla and Dodamarg taluks of Sindhudurg district are increasingly falling under the charm of bamboo, the green gold.

Abundant resource

According to the Status Paper on Rice in Maharashtra, Sindhudurg district receives 2,000 mm to 4,000 mm of rainfall and rice remains the mainstay crop. Endowed with laterite as well as alluvial soil, vegetables, millets and pulses are grown in winter. In addition to these, bamboo is being increasingly cultivated.

According to the Bamboo Resources of the Country prepared by the Forest Survey of India, the bamboo-bearing area under Maharashtra is 11,465 sq. km, distributed across 10 districts. Vidarbha produces over 90% of the total yield. The varieties grown here since long are Manvel (Dendrocalamus strictus), Katang (Bambusa bambos) or thorny bamboo, Manga (Dendrocalamus stocksii) and Chivari (Munrochloa ritchiei).

The Konkan region, which includes Sindhudurg, is home to Manga bamboo. Manga has been the preferred choice among farmers for its multipurpose uses. It is solid without thorns and grows straight, achieving a height of 15 m. It is used as stakes in horticulture, for making implements, for scaffolding and for making furniture and handicrafts. It starts yielding after five years, yielding eight to 12 sticks every year.

The varieties introduced in recent years include Bhima (Bambusa balcooa), Burma (Dendrocalamus brandisii), Giant Burma (Dendrocalamus giganteus) and Yellow or common (Bambusa vulgaris) bamboo.

Bamboo benefit

Sunil Sawant, a 57-year-old railway points man at Kudal, has refused several promotions as they entailed transfers because he doesn't want to leave the bamboos in his 20-acre plot. He informed VillageSquare.in that last year he sold Rs 15 lakh worth of bamboo to traders from Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Delhi. He plans to make Rs 20 lakh next year.

Bamboo can do without much irrigation and is not susceptible to pests. Attack from vertebrates like langur, gaur and wild boar can be controlled through three months of active guarding during the shoot-growing season. It requires minimum labor and is unaffected by extreme climatic conditions. It has readily available and well-established market linkages.

Farmers cultivate Manga bamboo as a tree-based intercrop. They do not clear fell the existing natural vegetation, but plant the bamboos around existing large trees. As the clumps compete with existing trees for sunlight, they grow taller and more erect than the clumps planted in the open. Additionally, the tree branches provide physical support and stability to the clumps. As the existing trees derive nutrients from deeper soil layers, the leaf litter makes nutrient readily available for the bamboo clumps.

Bamboo boosts economy

According to experts, Sindhudurg presently produces around 5,000 truckloads of bamboo every year. Each truckload bears 1,200 to 1,400 poles, with each pole fetching between Rs 50 and Rs 80, meaning the bamboo farmers have a minimum annual turnover of Rs 40 crore. The total bamboo economy of the district could be around Rs 50 crore.

On the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of bamboo cultivation, Milind Patil, a postgraduate from College of Forestry, Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth (DBSKKV), said he found the bamboo farmers of Sindhudurg a satisfied lot. His conclusion was based on his study of each crop from physiographic, climatic, environmental and economic perspectives. "The BCR of bamboo was 3.7, meaning a net benefit of Rs 3.7 on an investment of Rs 1.0, which was greater than the BCR of mango and cashew, which were 2.3 and 2.8 respectively," he told VillageSquare.in.

According to horticulturist Hemant Bedekar, a veteran campaigner who has organized scores awareness workshops in Maharashtra, bamboo grown in Sindhudurg is either transported to Kolhapur, Sankeshwar or Goa and then sent to the silk-rearing centers in the country's southern parts or to Mumbai to be used as scaffolding in the construction industry. The trade has helped bamboo flourish and holds potential in Konkan to develop industries like ply or lumber with international market demand.

Additional farm income

Like other villages in the district, Rambumbuli has witnessed large-scale migration of its inhabitants to cities in the recent years. But those who come home during festivals praise 37-year-old Santosh Dattaram Khot. Early in life, Khot realized the potential of bamboo. Over the years he has planted 2,500 bamboo saplings that now cover six acres of his farm. He continues to cultivate rice as well.

Francis Thomas D'Souza of Kolgaon village, who has increased his bamboo plantation from one acre in 1994 to 15 acres in about 13 years, expressed a similar sentiment. "In the next couple of years, I expect to make Rs 20 lakh a year just from bamboo," the 58-year-old traditional farmer and orchard owner told VillageSquare.in.

According to Ajay Dattaram Rane, associate professor of forestry, DBSKKV, who has helped set up several Manga nurseries, bamboo is helping farmers cope with changing climatic conditions. "A farmer in Hirlok in Kudal taluk did not get desired yield from his cashew crop, but the Manga bamboo yield helped him," Rane told VillageSquare.in. "I believe cashew plus Manga bamboo is a win-win situation for farmers of Sindhudurg district."

Under the state government-funded Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY), 14 private nurseries have been established in 11 villages, each nursery having the capacity of producing 5,000 plants. Each nursery owner is likely to earn around Rs 1.5 lakh per year by the sale of bamboo saplings, with a potential to scale up.

Among the beneficiaries of RKVY scheme is Patil of Pinguli village. He began with 100 mother plants of the Manga variety in 2016 on 7,000 sq. ft and sold 2,000 saplings for Rs 90 each. His nursery now spreads over 25,000 sq. ft. "I expect to make around Rs 5 lakh each year from my nursery and also from timber," he told VillageSquare.in.

Challenges and way forward

Though bamboo is a type of grass, the Indian Forest Act, 1927 defines bamboo as a tree — a contradiction in the law that has impacted the livelihood of millions and stunted the growth of bamboo industry. Despite India being the second largest grower of bamboo, the incense sticks industry is forced to import bamboo, thanks to the draconian law.

However, the Maharashtra government's decision three years ago to free the transit pass (TP) condition for bamboo grown on private land is a shot in the arm for bamboo farmers. Earlier, bamboo was transported within the districts of western Maharashtra without TP, as it was from private lands.

According to architect Sunil Joshi, chairman of the Maharashtra chapter of Bamboo Society of India, the TP regime affected the entire Maharashtra, more so Vidarbha, which is abundant in bamboo. "The TP-free regime has liberated bamboo and a bit of awareness about the cause and effects of future industrial development would help bamboo find its right place in farmlands," he told VillageSquare.in.

According to Bedekar, National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) and other nationalized banks should consider bamboo as a plantation crop and start financing the farmers. "It takes four to five years to get yields, and hence, repayment cycles should be planned accordingly," he said.

Hiren Kumar Bose is a journalist based in Thane, Maharashtra. He doubles up as a weekend farmer.

This article was first published on VillageSquare.in, a public-interest communications platform focused on rural India.

(The opinions expressed in this post are the personal views of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of HuffPost India. Any omissions or errors are the author's and HuffPost India does not assume any liability or responsibility for them.)

On Tuesday evening at Mumbai's MMRDA grounds — the mosquito-infested open-air venue for the Zee Cine Awards — there was a glorious moment that played out between real-life couple, Boney Kapoor and Sridevi.

Boney was called on stage by hosts Rohit Shetty and Karan Johar to hand out the Best Actor (Female) award – the second one in the same category for the night. The award went to Sridevi for Mom. While on stage, Boney had a disastrous slip, one that engulfed the venue with the kind of silence usually associated with funerals, or outer space.

He said, "I haven't manipulated this award for my wife," before laughing sheepishly. "Some people would remember, how in the old days..." he trailed off, sensing the audience's collective awkwardness.

Sridevi was visibly angry as one could see her internalize her anguish. Her moment of organic glory had been disrupted by her husband. The couple left the stage awkwardly, with Sridevi refusing to take Boney's hand.

The credibility of Indian award ceremonies have always been questionable. As award shows, in a bid to attract top dollar through sponsors, become media-driven events, the barter of award-for-celebrity-presence is an open secret within industry members and those who move in and around it.

No award means a no-show by the celeb.

And organizers depend heavily on celeb turnout as that's how they attract sponsors.

A former magazine editor, who HuffPost spoke to, recalled, "This one year, our entire list of winners changed as a good chunk of the industry had flown off for the wedding of a Bollywood personality." The magazine then carefully picked winners based on the celebrities who were in town that weekend.

Another person, part of the organizing team, said that an actor (a renowned superstar) was given a 'Supporting Role' award, despite hardly being in the movie (he is bumped off in the first few scenes), because of his proximity with the magazine's top bosses.

A team of editors, attached to a well-known magazine, realized they couldn't probably give this top star an award without brutally embarassing themselves (the top star had acted in one of the biggest critical/commercial duds of that year), so they arbitrarily christened, a 'Style Icon of the Year' category, to get the star to attend the ceremony.

In fact, in February last year, Rishi Kapoor bragged about buying a Filmfare Award for Best Actor. He told The Quint, "I have no hesitation in admitting that I was impetuous once. I had to buy the Filmfare Award for my performance in Bobby (1973)." He later told India Today that he coughed up Rs. 30,000 for the trophy.

But last night's show, the Zee Cine Awards 2017, was something else.

Last night, Zee didn't even try to keep up the pretense of taking itself seriously as trophies were doled out with reckless abandon. The tone of the farce that was about to unfurl was set early on in the ceremony, when the Best Cinematography Award went to, wait for it, Golmaal Again, in a year that saw exquisitely-shot films such as Jagga Jasoos, Rangoon, A Death in the Gunj, and Newton.

Manish Mundra, producer of Newton, had a cheeky response to this:

Hehehehehehehe. Just recheck. Is it photo shop award or cinematography award.

— Manish Mundra (@ManMundra) December 19, 2017

Hail Hindi Cinema. Are they not bored and ashamed of doing this ? Are these awards given on internet voting by general public? Or they set up a jury? https://t.co/5U0RFtL6iC

— Manish Mundra (@ManMundra) December 19, 2017

After a point, it seemed everybody who showed up went home with an award, those who didn't win were there because they were performing a dance number (which means they took home a fat pay-cheque and if you are Priyanka Chopra, that'd be 1 crore per minute, thank you very much).

There's nothing particularly novel, or wildly innovative about award ceremonies inventing categories, just to please a certain star, or have him/her attend the show. Almost all of the main ones are guilty of having that dubious distinction.

But Impactful Female of the Year/Girl Power Award? Seriously?

If you're going to come up with an award title with the hope that it can be passed off convincingly, at least spare the poor intern from doing the honors.

Zee gave Impactful Female of the Year Award to Taapsee Pannu, a gifted actress, but also someone whose cinematic contributions from last year (the very effective and relevant Pink) were offset this year by the unforgivably bad and deeply misogynistic Judwaa 2, a film where a man is seen spanking a woman's posterior, because he can't help it, consent be damned.

But a truly spectacular moment arrived when the Impactful Male of the Year trophy was being given.

Rajkummar Rao won the award, presumably because the organizers didn't feel his contribution to the larger discourse of cinema this year warranted a nomination in the 'Best Actor' category.

Instead, the Best Actor category had Hrithik Roshan as a contender for his role in Kaabil, Varun Dhawan for Judwaa 2/Badrinath, two nominations for Akshay Kumar (Jolly LLB 2, Toilet: Ek Prem Katha), and Ayushmann Khurrana for Shubh Mangal Saavdhan.

So when Rao, looking dapper in a white tuxedo, emerged on stage to collect the award, he was visibly puzzled and confused about what he was taking the award for. And he made that known, part of which I believe was his way of subtly calling out the seemingly pre-meditated ceremony.

"So this award is for?" he questioned, throwing hosts Rohit Shetty and Bhumi Pednekar, off-guard. He self-answered his query. "New...ton, I guess? Or for Trapped, Bareily ki Barfi? It's for everything I've done this year," he said, before strutting off, having held a mirror to the night's collective absurdity.

Impactful Male/Female weren't only the newest categories freshly conceived this year. An extraordinary Impact award (?) was handed out to Toilet: Ek Prem Katha, an Extraordinary Legend Award (why?) was bestowed to Amitabh Bachchan (of course), and Shah Rukh Khan too, took home a trophy for completing 25 years in Hindi cinema. Don't be surprised if next year, some other ceremony gives him an award for completing 26 years.

But if categories sprang up for no rhyme or reason, categories mysteriously disappeared too.

For instance, in 2016, Zee gave an award to Rishi Kapoor for Best Actor in a Comic Role, a vertical that went missing this year.

To offer you some perspective, the Oscars have only 24 categories, which have remained constant (the last time a new category was introduced was 16 years ago, for Best Animated Feature.)

The whole point of having award ceremonies, one would like to believe, is to honor and recognize works of art that may have eclipsed the attention of the mass, and put a spotlight on them and give them a new lease of life.

The box-office anyway rewards mainstream films with success. Catering to populism is simply a commercial call, a decision which is indicative of the marginal premium organizers put on content and the high value bestowed upon TRPs and star-pandering.

If that is the state of the National Awards, what hope to other ceremonies inspire?

Whatever credibility the National Awards enjoyed was eroded this year, when Akshay Kumar won Best Actor for Rustom/Airlift. The jury chairperson was his frequent collaborator, Priyadarshan, who, in an interview with Mumbai Mirror, didn't make any bones about why he'd won it.

"When Ramesh Sippy was jury head Amitabh Bachchan won. When Prakash Jha was head of jury, Ajay Devgn won," he said, basically saying that jury president's have previously given awards to the actors they've been closest to.

If that is the state of the National Awards, what hope to other ceremonies inspire?

For instance, in a recent interview, Kangana Ranaut, who, like Aamir Khan, doesn't attend award ceremonies, revealed how an award promised to her was given to someone else after she got stuck in traffic. "I got dressed up for some award, I don't remember the award but I was supposed to receive the award for supporting cast for Life In A Metro. I got stuck in traffic. I started getting calls asking 'where are you'. The hysteria and panic that I experienced, I didn't make it and Soha (Ali Khan) got it for Rang De Basanti."

She also said that Filmfare, one of the more prestigious ceremonies, is rigged, alleging that an award she was to receive for Krirsh 3, went to Supriya Pathak (Ram Leela), as she was out of the country, pursuing a screenwriting course at that time.

Jitesh Pillai, editor of the magazine, refuted her claims.

Apparently Kangana Ranaut has given a radio interview where she says I told her she was winning for krrish 🙄🙄🙄. Is she hallucinating? I've never had a conversation with her about krrish 😂😂😂

— J (@jiteshpillaai) December 19, 2017

As for the Zee Cine Awards, the evening drew to a close, with performances from Katrina Kaif, Priyanka Chopra, Shahid Kapoor, it was time for the big awards -- Actor/Actress/Film/Director.

Alia Bhatt and Akshay Kumar won Best Actor (Viewer's Choice) while Varun Dhawan and Sridevi won Best Actor in what was perhaps the 'Jury's Choice'. Meher Vij (Best Supporting Actress) and Raj Arjun (Best Actor in a Negative Role) won for their roles in Secret Superstar and Advait Chandan got Best Debut Director for the same film, awards that felt uncharacteristically genuine and well-deserved. But again, these were for categories that are very hard to mess up -- I mean -- could they've possible given the Best Actor in Negative Role to Neil Nitin Mukesh (he was nominated) and still survived the night? I think not.

Toilet: Ek Prem Katha, a government-pamphlet masquerading as a movie, won another award for Best Picture, while the 'Best Picture Best Picture Award' (*wink wink*) went to...

Not Lipstick Under My Burkha. Not Hindi Medium. Not Newton. Not Jagga Jasoos. Not Gurgaon. Not Secret Superstar. Not Tumhari Sulu. Not A Death in the Gunj.

But... Rohit Shetty's Golmaal Again.

Shetty who was on-stage already (remember, he was hosting the show) took the award without damaging any SUVs. He also expressed shock ("This is so unexpected...").

Then, with a loud thud, fireworks erupted on stage and Ranveer Singh sashayed up there with signature bravura. Amidst an explosion of confetti, a gigantic installation wishing everyone Happy New Year was plonked on stage, which now resembled a kaleidoscopic mess.

In this world of startling self-deceptions, everybody was happy, everybody had a trophy.

Also see on HuffPost:

Many of my clients worry about being labeled the ‘crazy-ex,’ but the truth is this: If you honored an important value or upheld a non-negotiable boundary, you should hold your head up high and let it go. Kimberly Resnick Anderson, psychiatry instructor at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine

On Monday night, the president and vice-chancellor of Wilfrid Laurier University released a statement announcing the results of an external fact-finding report launched to investigate what happened after teaching assistant Lindsay Shepherd played a clip of University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson on The Agenda with Steve Paikin, where he explained why he refuses to refer to some people by their pronouns. According to the actress and transgender advocate Laverne Cox, misgendering people is an "act of violence."

Despite the controversy regarding Shepherd's decision, the report concluded: Shepherd did nothing wrong, no students actually filed a complaint about her showing the clip and the professors who interrogated her will be punished.

The pundit Jonathan Kay, who, as he admits, has made a career complaining about what's happening on campuses he was a student at decades ago, captured the mood among "free speech advocates" across Canada.

I've covered campus crap-storms like this for years. But it's rare that I've ever seen one end in such an unambiguous win for one side. Congrats to @NewWorldHominin, who more or less single-handedly kick-started an overdue pushback against safe-space social panic on Cdn campuses https://t.co/uk0apbK4dF

— Jonathan Kay (@jonkay) December 18, 2017

Despite their celebrations, this supposed victory of free speech is not a win for all.

There is no such thing as a neutral free speech, an objective ideal we can reach, from which everyone benefits. Instead, the abstract idea of free speech is filtered when it passes from the pages of its inception into the world, being shaped by class, race and other factors. In the end, only the most privileged benefit from free speech.

The Shepherd incident, and the way it has been handled compared to a somewhat similar case, is a good example of how this works in practice.

The issue is not with those who inconsistently defend free speech, but rather with the myth that free speech is possible under capitalism.

This summer, Masuma Khan, a student leader at Dalhousie University, was put under investigation by the school's administration for expressing opposition to Canada Day 150 celebrations. She called them an ongoing "act of colonialism," and described the opposition to the student union's decision not to take part in the celebrations as an example of "white fragility."

Some leftist commentators have been quick to point out that Khan received far less support from free-speech advocates than Shepherd, with many of Shepherd's eventual supporters actually attacking Khan. They argue this unequal outrage at the perceived limiting of expression is an example of hypocrisy among "free speech advocates."

They may be right, but that's not the real problem. The issue is not with those who inconsistently defend free speech, but rather with the myth that free speech is possible under capitalism. That's why Shepherd's reply to the apparent contradiction between how her and Khan's cases were handled is illuminating.

Perhaps more people are supportive of me because I didn't make contemptuous and insolent comments about "white tears" and "white fragility" https://t.co/OpYdrJCXUM

— Lindsay Shepherd (@NewWorldHominin) November 25, 2017

It's not a coincidence that you'd need a microscope to find out Khan and Shepherd's circles of supporters are actually chunks of a Venn diagram, as very few people supported both, and those who have are effectively irrelevant in the broader conversation. This is because Shepherd, who is in the midst of an Olympic-speed turn from supposed leftist to right-wing pundit, was advancing an already dominant, but dehumanizing, idea, which naturally attracted the ravenous flock she now leads. Khan, meanwhile, was challenging the foundation of the system that has propped up those in power, a position that has naturally been less popular.

"Free speech advocates" love to cite the oft attributed to Voltaire quote, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The reality is, they aren't putting themselves on the line for anyone they disagree with, nor should they be expected to, as free speech advocacy is never neutral.

Many white people perceive themselves as the default from which everything else departs, so reminding them they're white is disorienting because they are no longer centred.

Yet, as another recent incident illustrates, the veneer of ideological impartiality is critical for "free speech advocates." On December 17, a panel on the "Sunday Scrum" segment on CBC News discussed people of the year. The Globe and Mail columnist John Ibbitson cited Shepherd, claiming she made free speech part of the national discourse. Another guest, Metro News Canada national columnist Vicky Mochama, replied by arguing Shepherd has only received so much attention because she is a "young, crying white girl," and stating she is not the right person to have ignited this debate because she "leans hard-right."

Shepherd, Peterson, Kay, a Toronto Suncolumnist and others, have all been melting down since, labelling Mochama, a black woman, as a racist. Their reaction illustrates how whiteness and the ideas of those in power have intersected in this case, as they often do.

Many white people perceive themselves as the default from which everything else departs, so reminding them they're white is disorienting because they are no longer centred. People in power, meanwhile, see their ideas as non-ideological, or even as common sense, and those who point this out are accused of having an agenda.

More from HuffPost Canada:

• Lindsay Shepherd Controversy: Students Never Complained About TA, Laurier Finds
• Andrew Scheer Calls Wilfrid Laurier University Controversy 'Egregious'
• Pitting Free Speech Against Trans Rights Is A Toxic Debate

As such, people like Mochama, who will identify this impartiality, are essential, because they undermine the appearance of neutrality "free speech advocates" need for their fight to be successful, and prevent right-wingers from browbeating people for not being part of their cause. This is the first step in the necessary fight against the "free speech" movement.

"Free speech" is too costly for the disenfranchised, and this will never change when the system in power profits from this imbalance.

Follow HuffPost Canada Blogs on Facebook

Also on HuffPost:

• The Engagement
  Bettmann via Getty Images
  Elizabeth found Philip, who joined the Royal Navy and served in World War II, to be "dashing" and a breath of fresh air, Seward said.
  
  From left to right: Princess Elizabeth, Philip, Queen Elizabeth (later, the Queen Mother), King George VI and Princess Margaret.
• The Wedding
  Getty Images
  The pair married on Nov. 20, 1947, at Westminster Abbey -- an event many in Great Britain anticipated greatly after many years of austerity and darkness during World War II.
  
  "For months, the public was treated to tantalizing hints about the details of the bridesmaids’ dresses, and the cake and so on," Sarika Bose, a royal expert and a lecturer in Victorian literature at the University of British Columbia, told HuffPost. "Here you had this young couple that represented hope for a new, happier age after the war."
• Getty Images
  With austerity measures still in effect, Elizabeth had to save up ration coupons to purchase the material for her wedding gown. Here, Elizabeth and Philip make their way down the aisle of Westminster Abbey, London, on their wedding day. 
• Royal Visits
  Keystone via Getty Images
  Philip and Elizabeth show off their square dance moves in 1951 in Ottawa, Canada, on one of many royal visits they made around the world. After the wedding, Philip had to to let go of many of his own career ambitions, Bose said.
  
  "Prince Philip was reluctant to leave his career in the Royal Navy, as he was progressing well on his own steam," she said. "In marrying the woman who would be queen, he knew he would always have to compromise in many ways, starting with giving up a career in the Navy that suited his active personality."
• Starting A Family
  PA Images via Getty Images
  In 1948, Philip and Elizabeth welcomed their firstborn, Prince Charles. Three more children would follow: their only daughter, Anne, and sons Andrew and Edward.
  
  As the husband and consort of queen, Philip has never taken the job lightly. His friend and private secretary Michael Parker once recalled: “He told me his job, first, second and last, was never to let her down.”
• Becoming Queen
  Getty Images
  As depicted in "The Crown," Princess Elizabeth learned she would become queen while on an official visit to Kenya in 1952. Her father, King George VI, had died, and it was Philip's duty to relay the news, said Marlene Eilers Koenig, a royal historian who runs the blog Royal Musings.
  
  "I can't imagine how difficult it was for Philip to be told that his father-in-law was dead and then have to take Elizabeth on a walk to break the news," Eilers Koenig said. "Not only that she was now queen, but that her beloved father had died."
• The Coronation
  Keystone via Getty Images
  The newly crowned Queen Elizabeth II and Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, wave at the crowds from the balcony at Buckingham Palace. The 1952 coronation happened six years into their marriage and left the Duke a bit unsettled. Many accounts suggest that the couple held very traditional views about gender roles in marriage, despite Elizabeth's position. 
  
  "Suddenly, Elizabeth was the boss," Seward said. "She took great care to not to emasculate her husband and therefore behind the scenes, allowed him to make all the decisions. He was still the alpha male and according to all accounts, they had a loving and passionate, but private, relationship."
• Adjusting To Their Roles
  PA Images via Getty Images
  The couple, pictured here at a polo match in 1957, had trouble adjusting to their new lives.
  
  “Elizabeth had a lot to learn as queen and also had everyday jobs in addition to opening hospitals and other royal duties,” Bose said. “She was concerned for her husband’s need for a sense of identity and gave him duties. Eventually, he was able to establish several very worthy charity initiatives, like the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award.”
• The Last Son
  Keystone via Getty Images
  In 1964, Elizabeth II and Philip welcomed their fourth and last child, Edward.
• Protecting The Monarchy
  Anwar Hussein via Getty Images
  Philip has always been protective of his wife and the royal family's standing in the world, Seward said. That was particularly true following the very public divorces of their sons, Prince Charles (from Princess Diana, pictured here in pink) and Prince Andrew (from Sarah, Duchess of York) in 1996. 
  
  "The queen has always valued her husband's strong opinions and he was very protective of her and anyone who damaged the institution of the monarchy," Seward said. "He saw both Diana and Fergie’s behavior as damaging to the monarchy and, therefore, to his wife. They both devoted their life to duty at a cost to their personal life, but it was what they both felt they had to do."
• Celebrations Later In Life
  PA Archive/PA Images
  Elizabeth — pictured here with Philip at St. Paul's Cathedral in London on her 90th birthday — acknowledged her husband's dedication to her during a celebratory speech to mark 60 years as queen.
  
  "Prince Philip is, I believe, well-known for declining compliments of any kind. But throughout he has been a constant strength and guide," she said in 2012.
• Their 70th Anniversary
  James Devaney via Getty Images
  The royal couple — pictured in June 2017 with their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren — recently celebrated their 70th anniversary. 
  
  "Their displays of affections have largely been confined behind the palace walls, but I am certain that there is great romance there," Eilers Koenig said. "It's still there, even now, after more than 70 years of marriage."