I saw a pic on Buzzfeed or somesuch that showed a condom in its wrapper, pinned to a note board, right through the middle.
I know that that spells doom for the condom being effective against pregnancy or STD’s – clearly a number of sperm can get out, or a number of pathogens can get out (or in). But is a damaged condom better than no condom at all?
IANA epidemiologist, but any reduction in the volume of a pathogen you are exposed to makes it more likely that your immune system will repel it. From the birth control angle, any sperm still inside that condom (which will probably be plenty) will not have a chance to fertilize an egg.
Say that without a condom, the likelihood of pregnancy is 10%. With a punctured condom, the likelihood of pregnancy might be…4%.
(figures completely made up, but you get my point)
I think they used these in combination with salves or ointments. I have a private suspicion that they may have used linseed oil – the same stuff used to make oilcloth waterproof – but nothing to back this up.
In any event, these early (17th century and earlier) condoms, being made of cloth, were literally full of holes. Unless their use was simply a profound Leap of Faith, they were presumably somewhat effective. I suspect that a latex or nitrile condom, with only one hole, and possibly coated with spermicide, would be much more effective. Of course, the location of the hole would affect how effective it was.
So evidently there *were['I] reasons to believe those fabric condoms had some efficacy in preventing both disease and pregnancy, and it wasn’t all Blind Faith. I suspect the use of spermicide and waterproofing would’ve helped, nonetheless.