“Female orgasm has no evolutionary function” and other insights from some dude who’s very bad at sex

Cat Mara wrote:

I suspect Irene’s point is that animal copulation tends to be a lot less… performative than the human variety. It tends to be rather perfunctory and mechanical to our eyes. There’s usually no great climax, and afterwards both parties seem to go about their business very matter-of-factly and with about as much ceremony as they carry out any other bodily function. The difference may be because the “performance” part is taken care of by the courtship displays that precedes most animals’ mating; another possibility is that humans have a concept of deferred gratification that I’m not sure many other animals share, and so we generally try to spin out the act for as long as we can while also maintaining arousal.

If I understand the biological terms correctly, courtship is a part of the mating process, and copulation is the defining part called intercourse or coitus in humans. Courtship is behavior that typically immediately precedes copulation, though it doesn’t always lead to copulation and may not always occur before copulation.

In some animals, notably in humans, a lot of courtship-like behavior occurs independently of copulation for the purpose of pair bonding. I figure that in humans, courtship technically includes foreplay and afterplay, as well as flirting, kissing, snuggling, sexual negotiations and perhaps even relationship talks. The more unusual (ie. kinky) aspects in any sexual interaction would be classified under general playfulness.

I’m not sure how you’d biologically describe the kind of human sexual interaction process that’s colloquially recognized as “sex” but doesn’t involve PIV intercourse. Perhaps “pseudomating” would be applicable in most such circumstances? Or just expand the usage of “mating”?