She has a point.

>After her death, Mead's Samoan research was criticized by the anthropologist Derek Freeman, who published a book arguing against many of Mead's conclusions in Coming of Age in Samoa.[45] Freeman argued that Mead had misunderstood Samoan culture when she argued that Samoan culture did not place many restrictions on youths' sexual explorations. Freeman argued instead that Samoan culture prized female chastity and virginity and that Mead had been misled by her female Samoan informants. Freeman found that the Samoan islanders whom Mead had depicted in such utopian terms were intensely competitive and had murder and rape rates higher than those in the United States. Furthermore, the men were intensely sexually jealous, which contrasted sharply with Mead’s depiction of 'free love" among the Samoans.[46]

>Deborah Gewertz (1981) studied the Chambri (called Tchambuli by Mead) in 1974–1975 and found no evidence of such gender roles. Gewertz states that as far back in history as there is evidence (1850s), Chambri men dominated the women, controlled their produce, and made all important political decisions. In later years, there has been a diligent search for societies in which women dominate men or for signs of such past societies, but none has been found (Bamberger 1974).[65] Jessie Bernard criticised Mead's interpretations of her findings and argued that Mead's descriptions were subjective. Bernard argues that Mead claimed the Mundugumor women were temperamentally identical to men, but her reports indicate that there were in fact sex differences; Mundugumor women hazed each other less than men hazed each other and made efforts to make themselves physically desirable to others, married women had fewer affairs than married men, women were not taught to use weapons, women were used less as hostages and Mundugumor men engaged in physical fights more often than women. In contrast, the Arapesh were also described as equal in temperament, but Bernard states that Mead's own writings indicate that men physically fought over women, yet women did not fight over men. The Arapesh also seemed to have some conception of sex differences in temperament, as they would sometimes describe a woman as acting like a particularly quarrelsome man. Bernard also questioned if the behaviour of men and women in those societies differed as much from Western behaviour as Mead claimed. Bernard argued that some of her descriptions could be equally descriptive of a Western context.[66]

>After her death, Mead's Samoan research was criticized by the anthropologist Derek Freeman, who published a book arguing against many of Mead's conclusions in Coming of Age in Samoa.[45] Freeman argued that Mead had misunderstood Samoan culture when she argued that Samoan culture did not place many restrictions on youths' sexual explorations. Freeman argued instead that Samoan culture prized female chastity and virginity and that Mead had been misled by her female Samoan informants. Freeman found that the Samoan islanders whom Mead had depicted in such utopian terms were intensely competitive and had murder and rape rates higher than those in the United States. Furthermore, the men were intensely sexually jealous, which contrasted sharply with Mead’s depiction of 'free love" among the Samoans.[46]

Are you gonna deboonk precontact Hawaii next?
Is it really that hard for you to accept some tribes did kinky shit?

Starting breeding around puberty is common in primitive societies and consistent with evolutionary theory. Mead made a bunch of bull shit up to support a narrative she wanted to push but starting sexual behavior soon after puberty is not one of them.

The better question is if controlling sexual behavior creates more stable and prosperous societies vs unregulated sexual behavior creating violent and chaotic ones. The Prudes have a better handle on the world than the Hedonists.

Or maybe, just maybe, you're a vile inperialist chud?

Antisemitism detected. A sheriff has been dispatched.

Because Twitter is a relentless enforcer of cultural taboo.
However I don't quite understand what her point was. Was she just trying to make an inflammatory defense of cultural relativism (which is very much real) or just excuse western pedophiles?
Just because it's a taboo it doesn't mean it should be "deconstructed" or "dismantled".

>cervix ripped out of penis
????

>cervix ripped out of penis
????

Probably should have worded it better, meant women would almost rip out their cervix and the men cut a hole in their dick

If I remember correctly, a wad of hair and other stuff would be rammed up a girls cervix, then yanked out violently, tearing out a big chunk of her cervix, and then a bunch of men would have sex with her bleeding hole, and then the mixture of blood an cum would be drizzled into a ceremonial cup, and then the wise men of th village would drink it.

Not even goofing.

Is there a website for learning all of these strange customs?

Without context I can't tell. She could be mentioning that to point out "indigenous primitive" societies are nothing to emulate or glorify.

are we still talking about island savages or Bradford here

The fact that she's openly describing a people as "primitive" shows that she didn't pay attention when earning her degree because such ideas as "primitive" v. "civilized" are major taboos in Anthropology

>t. Anthropology minor, History major

Yeah, I've lost all respect for degrees, doctorates, whatever. They're fucking useless, and I say this from experience.

Incorrect, this girl would also fuck you, which a normal woman wouldn't.