Fact check: What percentage of men have tried pegging in their relationships?

1. Why the direct number is missing — the evidence gap that stands out

All supplied sources consistently fail to report a numeric prevalence of men who have tried pegging, leaving the original question unanswered in the dataset provided. Articles supplied focus on other topics: a sex expert discussing cuckolding and taboo fantasies, a poll about after-sex behavior, medical coverage of pelvic floor dysfunction, and guides to consensual non-monogamy behaviors — none present representative survey data or explicit statistics about pegging practices ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}. This absence means any claim about percentage would be unsupported by these documents and requires external, targeted survey evidence.

2. What the supplied coverage does illuminate about sexual openness and related practices

The materials collectively suggest rising visibility of atypical sexual practices and the language to discuss them: a sex expert frames cuckolding as more common than assumed and highlights communication and consent as central, while other pieces examine emotional aftercare and evolving dating norms ^{[1] [2] [5]}. These themes imply an environment where previously stigmatized sexual behaviors are being discussed more openly in mainstream outlets, which could increase reporting in future surveys. Yet openness in discourse is not the same as quantified prevalence; the texts document conversation, not rates.

3. How adjacent topics in the dataset relate but do not substitute for pegging data

Several supplied analyses touch on sexual health and nontraditional sexual arrangements, which are contextually relevant but do not substitute for direct pegging prevalence data. The pelvic floor dysfunction piece addresses medical consequences and treatment but does not explore sexual practices or frequency ^[3]. Articles on hotwifing and cuckolding describe dynamics and consent considerations but intentionally avoid providing general-population prevalence figures, focusing instead on experiences and social framing ^{[1] [4]}. Therefore, these pieces are useful for contextual understanding but cannot answer the numeric question.

4. Conflicting emphases and potential agendas in the sources

The sex-expert pieces emphasize normalization and relationship benefits of exploring taboo fantasies, which could reflect an agenda toward destigmatization and empowerment ^[1]. The after-sex poll frames communication as key to intimacy, highlighting emotional rather than sexual-behavior metrics ^[2]. Medical reporting centers clinical outcomes and treatment pathways, prioritizing health information over sexual practice prevalence ^[3]. These differing emphases indicate that source selection influences whether discussion centers on normalization, emotional dynamics, or clinical concerns, and none prioritize prevalence measurement for specific behaviors like pegging.

5. What a reliable percentage would require — methodological criteria

A credible percentage estimate would demand a recent, representative survey with explicit, neutrally worded questions about pegging, clear definitions for respondents, and demographic breakdowns. It would require random or probability-based sampling, adequate sample size to capture a relatively rare behavior, and transparent reporting of methods and confidence intervals. None of the supplied documents document such methods or present survey results for pegging; thus, the correct next step is to consult peer-reviewed sexual behavior surveys or large national probability samples that explicitly ask about anal stimulation, toy use by partners, or pegging terminology.

6. Practical guidance for answering the question rigorously

To obtain a defensible figure, researchers should review national sexual behavior studies (e.g., Kinsey-style or national health surveys) for direct items on pegging or partner anal-play with toys, or design a targeted study asking about emergent sexual practices using validated wording. Media pieces, opinion columns, or small online polls cannot substitute for population-based data; relying on them risks overstating prevalence. The supplied materials can inform hypotheses about social acceptance and communication patterns ^{[1] [2]}, but they cannot produce the percentage requested.

7. Bottom line: what we can say now and what remains unknown

Based on the supplied analyses, the only defensible conclusion is that no estimate of the percentage of men who have tried pegging is present in these sources; available articles provide context and related discussion but no numeric prevalence ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}. To answer the original question reliably requires targeted, representative survey data that the current dataset lacks. Until such data are cited, any specific percentage would be unsupported by the materials provided.