Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What do large-scale sex surveys (e.g., Natsal, Kinsey, Durex) reveal about regional differences in oral sex prevalence and preference?
Executive summary
Large, repeated probability surveys like Britain’s Natsal series show that oral sex has become a common part of sexual repertoires over recent decades—especially among younger cohorts—and that rises in “ever” experience levelled off between the most recent Natsal waves (Natsal‑2 to Natsal‑3) for Britain (prevalence stable) [1] [2]. Commercial global polls such as Durex’s Global Sex Survey report country-to-country differences in satisfaction and behaviour across dozens of countries, but their methods and commercial aims differ from academic probability surveys and make direct regional prevalence comparisons less robust [3] [4].
1. Natsal: Britain’s best‑quality time series — oral sex rose then stabilised
The National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal) are repeated, population‑based probability surveys of Britain that explicitly define oral sex and include it in their measures of “sex” and sexual frequency, allowing cohort and period comparisons [5] [6]. Natsal papers report a marked expansion of heterosexual repertoires over time, “particularly in oral and anal sex,” and increases in ever‑reporting of oral sex for younger people across earlier rounds; but between Natsal‑2 (1999–2001) and Natsal‑3 (2010–12) the rise in reporting of oral sex did not continue — prevalence in Natsal‑3 was similar to Natsal‑2 [2] [1]. That pattern underlines both cohort change (younger generations adopting practices earlier) and a recent plateau in Britain [7] [1].
2. What Natsal says about regional variation inside Britain — limited but measured
Natsal is designed to be representative across England, Scotland and Wales and weights data to census distributions, so it can show regional differences in Britain when sample sizes allow; the publications emphasise differences by age, sex and social determinants more than fine‑grained local geography [2] [8]. The accessible Natsal outputs and interactive tools are intended to let users explore subgroups (including region), but the major peer‑reviewed articles emphasise national trends and age/cohort gradients rather than headline regional “rankings” [9] [5].
3. Kinsey and historical context — early US benchmarks, not modern regional prevalence maps
The Kinsey reports (1940s–50s) documented that oral‑genital contact was already common in mid‑20th century US samples and shifted public understanding of sexual behaviour, but Kinsey used different sampling and methods from later probability surveys and his work is best read as a cultural and historical benchmark rather than a source for modern regional prevalence comparisons [10] [11]. Contemporary, representative national surveys (e.g., NHANES, NSSHB) and modern probability studies provide more directly comparable prevalence estimates for present‑day regions; Kinsey’s legacy is methodological and cultural more than a current empirical baseline for regional differences [12] [11].
4. Durex Global Sex Survey — wide country coverage, commercial framing, limited comparability
Durex’s Global Sex Survey covers many countries (tens of thousands of respondents) and reports cross‑country differences in satisfaction, condom use and other behaviours; its 2024/2025 waves claim large samples (e.g., 29,000 respondents across 36 countries), and headlines include country rankings for satisfaction and behaviours [3] [13] [14]. But Durex is a market brand: the survey’s recurring objective is to inform product strategy and public outreach, and media/PR releases emphasise topline comparisons rather than methodological caveats; independent peer review and sampling details are less transparent than for academic probability surveys, limiting how confidently one can translate Durex country differences into precise prevalence estimates of oral sex practice or preference [4] [14].
5. Global pattern: age, culture and question wording drive differences
Across sources, the clearest and most reproducible patterns are age and cohort effects (younger people report higher ever‑experience of oral sex) and cultural/regional differences strongly shaped by question wording, definitions and sampling frame [15] [7] [16]. For example, studies that use Natsal‑style validated definitions or translate questionnaires show higher reported prevalence than some smaller or differently framed studies; West African data show notably lower reported prevalence than Britain/US surveys, but authors explicitly caution about differences in measurement and social context [16] [15].
6. How to interpret “preference” vs “prevalence” — different questions, different tools
Academic surveys like Natsal measure prevalence (ever/ recent occurrence, frequency) and include oral sex within a defined “repertoire”; they are less focused on nuanced preferences or techniques. Commercial surveys (Durex) often include satisfaction and preference questions but are not probability samples in the same way, so their comparative claims about which countries “prefer” oral sex are indicative rather than definitive [5] [3]. Available sources do not mention a single standardized global dataset that reliably ranks countries by oral‑sex preference using probability sampling and harmonised questions.
7. Bottom line and guidance for further reading
If you want robust estimates of prevalence and time trends in a country, rely on repeated probability surveys or published peer‑reviewed studies (Natsal, NSSHB, NHANES and similar) and examine question wording and age breakdowns carefully [5] [2] [17]. For broad cross‑country snapshots and behavioural context, Durex’s Global Sex Survey offers extensive coverage but interpret its country comparisons cautiously because of commercial aims and methodological opacity [4] [14].