Are there reliable prevalence estimates for pegging from large-scale sexual behavior studies?

1. What big surveys measure — and what they omit: the silent absence

Major, large-scale sexual behavior surveys (the kinds that produce nationally representative prevalence estimates) typically ask about broad acts—vaginal, oral, receptive/insertive anal sex—but the provided sources show no clear citation of such surveys including a discrete question labeled “pegging.” The encyclopedic summary on pegging notes that no peer‑reviewed studies isolate pegging’s infection rates and relies on broader anal‑play data instead, implying large surveys lump anal practices together rather than measuring pegging specifically ^[4]. Therefore, available sources do not mention a national‑level prevalence estimate for pegging drawn from a large representative study ^[4].

2. Where researchers have looked: qualitative and niche scholarship

Scholarly attention exists, but it is mainly qualitative and focused on lived experience rather than population prevalence. For example, a qualitative leisure‑studies paper titled “It’s Absolutely Intense, and I Love It!” investigates pegging as leisure and reports relational and experiential themes, not representative prevalence rates ^[1]. Such work is valuable for depth and context but cannot substitute for large‑sample prevalence estimates ^[1].

3. Commercial and aggregator claims — usable but limited

Commercial sites and compilations report numbers and trends—claims about increased gear sales, appeal percentages, or college samples—but these are proprietary analyses or secondary reporting rather than transparent, peer‑reviewed national estimates. A 2025 women’s‑health compilation cites proprietary statistics (sales growth, selected survey items about anal pleasure, and a university sample where 24% of heterosexual male students reported some anal pleasure), but that is not the same as a nationally representative pegging prevalence estimate and lacks primary data disclosure in the snippets provided ^[2]. Use such figures cautiously: they indicate interest or market trends but do not prove population prevalence.

4. Encyclopedic syntheses: broad claims, narrow evidence

An online encyclopedic page on pegging synthesizes media trends, sales data, and some survey findings (e.g., rising interest in certain countries), but it also explicitly notes gaps — for instance, that over half of Australians have never tried anal play according to a 2025 census cited there, and that peer‑reviewed infection‑rate work specific to pegging is missing ^{[3] [4]}. This source aggregates signals but does not present a discrete, robust prevalence estimate from a large representative sexual‑behavior study ^{[3] [4]}.

5. Why measuring pegging is methodologically tricky

Available materials imply several challenges: pegging is a specific act nested under broader “anal play” categories, terms and definitions vary across studies, and stigma or terminology unfamiliarity can suppress self‑reporting ^{[4] [3]}. These factors mean even surveys that ask about “anal sex” may undercount pegging specifically, and qualitative studies capture nuance but not population rates ^{[4] [1]}.

6. What to look for if you want a reliable prevalence estimate

To find a reliable prevalence number you need (a) a large, probability‑sample sexual behavior survey that lists pegging as a distinct item; (b) transparent questionnaire wording and sampling details; and (c) peer‑reviewed publication or public‑use data. None of the provided sources supplies that combination; the literature available here is qualitative, commercial, or encyclopedic synthesis rather than a representative epidemiologic report ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.

7. Bottom line and recommended next steps for researchers and journalists

Bottom line: current reporting and scholarship available in these sources do not document a widely accepted, large‑sample prevalence estimate of pegging from population‑representative sexual behavior studies ^{[4] [1]}. Journalists or researchers seeking solid prevalence numbers should search major sexual‑behavior datasets (e.g., national sexual behavior surveys or large longitudinal cohorts) for item‑level questions about strap‑on anal penetration or contact original study instruments; if those instruments lack that item, credible prevalence cannot be produced from those datasets. The sources here confirm interest and qualitative evidence but not the large‑scale prevalence figure you asked about ^{[1] [2] [3]}.