Which surveys measure sexual activities like pegging in couples?

1. Where researchers look first: large national surveys and what they measure

The go‑to, nationally representative instrument for U.S. sexual behavior is the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior (NSSHB), run from Indiana University’s Center for Sexual Health Promotion; NSSHB publishes waves that document frequency of intercourse, sexual repertoire and shifts over time and has been used to analyze changes in sexual repertoires between 2009 and 2018 ^{[1] [2] [5]}. These large surveys prioritize representativeness and often report categories like “anal sex” or broad repertoires rather than many specific niche acts by name; NSSHB’s published articles highlight “more than 40 combinations of sexual activity” at last sexual event, showing breadth but not necessarily naming every kink ^{[5] [2]}.

2. Who asks directly about pegging: smaller surveys, magazines, industry reports and qualitative studies

Explicit pegging prevalence is more often reported by non‑probability polls, magazines, adult industry analytics and qualitative research. Media outlets and retailers (e.g., Lovehoney, Marie Claire, Clips4Sale summaries) and qualitative papers focused on pegging present direct estimates and firsthand accounts — for example, some reports cite roughly 10% of women having pegged a partner or media summaries saying about 15–16% have tried pegging, and qualitative studies examine experiences and meanings of pegging among participants ^{[3] [4] [6] [7]}. These sources are useful for depth and trend signals but are not always based on nationally representative probability sampling.

3. Academic coverage: what peer‑reviewed work says (and what it omits)

Peer‑reviewed work that explicitly centers pegging is limited but growing: qualitative studies analyze pegging as leisure or as a sexual practice and report participant narratives, while broader sexual‑behavior surveys (like NSSHB and national British Natsal work) document analytic categories such as anal sex and changing sexual repertoires without always listing pegging by name ^{[7] [6] [2] [8]}. Available academic sources do not present a consistent, large‑sample prevalence estimate of pegging comparable to NSSHB figures for other acts; in short, representative surveys tend to record broader acts, while niche acts are more visible in targeted qualitative or market studies ^{[2] [7]}.

4. Method limitations: social desirability, question wording and sampling matter

Survey research on sexual practices faces known measurement problems: self‑reporting bias, social desirability, and differences in how questions are worded or introduced can change estimates considerably ^{[9] [10]}. Reviews of sex survey methodology explicitly note that sensitive or stigmatized behaviors are prone to misreporting and that large national surveys sometimes omit measures (e.g., social desirability scales) that could help interpret results ^{[9] [10]}. This means pegging prevalence numbers from non‑representative surveys or industry sales should be treated as indicative rather than definitive.

5. How to find reliable measurements of pegging if you need them

If you want prevalence estimates drawn from representative samples, start with large national probability surveys’ codebooks and publications (NSSHB, Natsal, national health surveys) to see whether they included explicit items ^{[1] [2] [8]}. For direct measures of pegging, search the qualitative and focused‑survey literature (pegging‑specific qualitative studies and targeted sexual‑kink surveys) and industry trend reports; those will give named estimates and first‑person accounts but require careful scrutiny of sampling and question wording ^{[6] [7] [4] [3]}.

6. Bottom line for journalists, clinicians and researchers

Representative sex surveys like NSSHB are the best source for population‑level patterns and changing sexual repertoires, but they rarely provide fine‑grained prevalence for every specific kink; pegging is primarily documented in qualitative work, targeted surveys and market analytics that show it is visible and possibly rising in cultural prominence with some media‑cited estimates around 10–16% in certain samples ^{[1] [2] [4] [3]}. For precise, generalizable prevalence, available sources do not present a consistent probability‑sample estimate of pegging comparable to other mainstream sex acts — researchers should combine representative surveys for context with pegging‑focused studies for specific measurement, and always report sampling and wording limitations ^{[9] [10]}.