4.0 Article

The condom: A turbulent history

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/13625187.2015.1050716

Keywords

Condom; Contraception; Female condom; History of contraception; Sexually transmitted infections

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and objectives The literature concerning the history of condoms is replete with errors. The paper Youssef published in 1993 is in our opinion the best. We update and expand the information.Methods To mention only established facts, we accessed primary sources, which are identified in the article.Findings The origin of the term condom' remains an enigma. Plausible hypotheses are that it is derived from either (i) the Latin condere' (to sheathe) or the corresponding noun condus' (receptacle); or (ii) the Venetian variant gondon' of the Italian word guantone' (glove). The earliest identified mention of a similar barrier method is in the legend of Minos and Pasiphae written (in the 2nd century AD) by Antoninus Liberalis. A penile sheath, made from animal gallbladder, was advocated in the 10th century by the Persian physician Al-Akhawayni. The earliest surviving condoms made of animal membranes date back to between 1642 and 1646. Such skin' condoms became increasingly popular for prevention of venereal disease, but as early as the 18th century their value as contraceptives was appreciated. Rubber condoms were available from 1855; since 1930, they are made of latex. We mention, in parallel, the most striking changes over time in sexual mores and behaviours, and illustrate these by referring to colourful figures such as, among others, Boswell, Mrs Philips, Casanova, Marguerite Gourdan, and Richard Carlile.Conclusion Papers related to this topic often contain errors, which we identify. Condoms over time evolved from animal gut receptacles to reliable contraceptives protecting also against certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available