Back when she was 23, Tiffany Gaines tried to buy condoms over the counter at a convenience store in New York City. She distinctly remembers how uncomfortable she felt. “It was this awkward and shameful experience, and I felt humiliated,” as the clerk used an eight-foot orange claw to pick up the condoms in front of a group of men buying beer on a Saturday night.

It was 2012, and at the time, she was a graduate student in design for social innovation at the School of Visual Arts. Gaines saw an opportunity to take what could feel like a distressing experience and turn it into making purchasing condoms empowering and fun.


In 2014, Lovability Inc. was born, and Gaines found herself running and operating a company aimed at promoting feminism through every condom purchase. But she never could have predicted the current state of affairs, with reproductive rights at risk and employers no longer covering birth control pills. As the Trump administration continually undermines women, people are taking their sexual health into their own hands more than ever before. And that puts women-owned condom companies in a rather enviable position.

[quote position=”left” is_quote=”true”]The name Trojan, it’s extremely aggressive. It’s the story of the Trojan horse sneaking its way into an impenetrable city and ravaging it.[/quote]

Gaines is one of many women bringing a different perspective to the condom industry. Talia Frenkel founded L. Condoms (which partners with organizations in Sub-Saharan Africa) in 2011 after working as a photojournalist for Red Cross and United Nations. It was during her time chronicling the AIDS and HIV crisis affecting young girls that she saw an opportunity to make a difference. “I hadn’t realized that 90% of countries in Sub-Saharan Africa go through condom stock-outs and this was really undermining the efforts of organizations on the ground working to promote awareness and usage of condoms,” she says. “There was a lot of talk about girls being our greatest impact resource and future agents of change in development, but at the end of the day, it was easier to raise funds for business micro-loans and more difficult to talk about those same girls becoming sexually active.”

Then, in 2014, Meika Hollender teamed up with her father, the co-founder of Seventh Generation, and established Sustain, a non-GMO condom company. It was the lack of eco-friendly condoms “that sort of drove us in a certain direction when we started Sustain,” Hollender says. “Coming from the background of Seventh Generation, we thought it was crazy that when it came to the most intimate parts of our bodies and what went inside women’s vaginas, there weren’t many natural options. So we saw a huge opportunity there.”

With over 450 million condoms sold in the United States alone each year, there certainly does appear to be a market, particularly with women. But two companies currently dominate the condom space in the U.S.: Trojan, which makes up 69% of condoms purchased, and Durex, which sells 15%. The other 16% is made of smaller companies like Lovability, Sustain, and L.

Statistically, women are less likely to carry condoms or even use them. The National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior found heterosexual men consistently use condoms at a higher rate than straight women when it comes to vaginal intercourse.

While compiling research when starting Sustain, Hollender found that 40% of condoms are purchased by women; however, Hollender also learned “that only 21% of single sexually active women use condoms regularly; 48% of pregnancies are unplanned; and 1 in 4 college freshmen contract an STI in college during her first year of school. These statistics mixed with the reality that I knew about how women feel buying condoms sort of triggered this idea and journey of building Sustain to help break the stigma of buying and carrying condoms and helping empower women to feel good about making a responsible choice.”

Why are women reluctant to buy or use condoms? Frenkel described Trojan’s hypermasculinity in their products as one example, “The name Trojan, it’s extremely aggressive. It’s the story of the Trojan horse sneaking its way into an impenetrable city and ravaging it.” Gaines added, “So many condoms are associated with hypersexuality, dominance, and masculinity, so what we’re doing [as companies] is taking condoms out of that context and redefining them as a symbol of self-love.”

And women-owned condom companies seem to be targeting women successfully. Richelle Schilling, 30, started carrying condoms consistently in the last year and has purchased her condoms through Lovability’s website. Despite taking control of her sexual health, she is aware of the stigma attached to a woman carrying her own condoms. “It seems to be viewed that if a woman is carrying a condom, she is easy to get into bed.”

Now that she has an option to support a woman-owned company with women in mind, Schilling feels more comfortable purchasing condoms. “When purchasing from a condom company that is marketed toward women, it is a reminder that women are taking control of their [sexual] lives. With the stigmas out there, it’s a reminder that other women are staying protected, enjoying their sex lives, and supporting other women,” she says.

Ariel Stallings, a publisher and author, found herself in a strange position after divorcing her husband of 18 years. When she started dating again, the thought of buying condoms felt strange and elusive. “I don’t feel a sense of shame for carrying them though,” she says, but “the idea of carrying a condom in cute packaging is appealing to me because I’m a sucker for cute packaging.”

Outside of the cute factor, however, Stallings believes there’s a benefit in creating condoms that directly focus on women. “I like to think of harm reduction. While it’s ideal for women to not feel shame for having a condom fall out of their bag because it shouldn’t be a big deal, these products are good to have available to them since we’re not in an age yet where women don’t feel shame.”

The packaging for Lovability, Sustain, and L. all have different aesthetics. Lovability’s condoms are playful and fun, coming in tin cans with sayings written on them like, “Talk Feminist to Me” or “Babe with the Power.” Lovability started the theme of the company centered around discretion and being able to hide the fact one was carrying condoms. “Now it’s much more about being proud about being a person that takes responsibility of your sexual health,” Gaines says, adding, “condoms are a very bold statement of believing in gender equality because, if you have a condom, all of a sudden you are decreasing the amount of risk from it being totally on the man to carry a condom.”

Sustain also recently rebranded itself, moving away from being too discreet. “Initially, we didn’t think about the fact that as a brand we should be really straightforward because we are bold and we aren’t trying to hide who we are. If you make it too discreet, you’re kind of buying into that idea that you should not feel comfortable that someone sees you buying condoms,” Hollender says.

Frenkel always had a sleek design in mind for her brand. “I’ll get invited to speak at this women’s event in Silicon Valley, and all I’ll see is pink and purple and stuff that’s super flowery,” she says. “I think that it’s funny because I think women are drawn to things that are clean and modern, and that’s why we went for a black and white box.”

For Olivia Gunther, a sexuality researcher at the University of Michigan, marketing condoms specifically toward women will only further stigmatize women carrying and buying condoms.

Gunther pointed to Trojan’s latest XOXO condom, which is made to look discreet and feminine. “Condom companies that do target women need to be careful with how they market their gender-defined packaging. [For example,] the XOXO box looks very feminine and is clearly supposed to comfort the typical woman who wants to purchase safer sex products. It tries to normalize the product for her by assuming that it will appeal to her feminine interests and style.” According to Gunther, this is problematic because it assumes that women do not own their sexualities in public, or in general.

“Marketing towards women needs to align itself mores with including them in the conversation about sexual health and the importance of using barrier methods when engaging in sexual activity, instead of shaming them into buying condom boxes that don’t even look like condom boxes,” Gunther says.

At Gunther’s university, she has observed a shift since the election. “I’ve noticed an uptick in my friends and other students at my university purchasing condoms more frequently. With the risk that hormonal contraceptives may not be covered or harder to access in the future, it’s imperative that women who aren’t planning on becoming pregnant in the next few years consider what their options may be.”

For Lovability, Sustain, and L., their aim is to not only help women take charge of their sexual health, but also promote philanthropic causes that support women’s rights that feel under siege. Which is another reason women are attracted to them over other more mainstream brands.

Sustain gives 10% of its proceeds to women’s health care organizations, which has resonated with more of their customers since the election. “Before the election, we received negative feedback on where people would say ‘I love your brand, but can’t support your because [Sustain] supports Planned Parenthood,’” Hollender says. “But since November, we haven’t received one of those emails.”

With every purchase of an L. condom, one is donated to a female entrepreneur in a developing country. “When I started this I wanted to make sure our condoms didn’t sit in a warehouse when we donated them and that we took a more holistic approach. These nonprofit program officers are able to pinpoint women in high impact areas, such as unplanned pregnancies or high HIV contraction rates and work with them and train them,” Frenkel says. “Then they go door to door and sell it at low market costs. That makes it a lot more likely that the product will be used. There have been reports that if you sell a mosquito net for pennies, it’s much more likely to be used than if you give it for free. You can also see that with condoms.”

[quote position=”full” is_quote=”true”]I’ll get invited to speak at this women’s event in Silicon Valley, and all I’ll see is pink and purple and stuff that’s super flowery. I think that it’s funny because I think women are drawn to things that are clean and modern.[/quote]

Lovability donates a condom to Planned Parenthood with every purchase and also employs physically and mentally disabled people from ARC San Diego to assemble their condom tins. Meanwhile, L. Condoms is putting fewer chemicals in the condoms themselves. “The World Health Organization does not recommend spermicide in condoms,” Frenkel says.

Research does appear to be leaning in this direction. Dr. Ann Duerr, HIV chief in the reproductive health division at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told ABC News, “For sexually transmitted disease prevention, our recommendation has been to use condoms with or without nonoxynol-9. Now it’s clear that N-9 does not add protection and may be harmful.” For Frenkel, this is troublesome. “The fact that there are condoms sold with spermicide still on shelves is pretty alarming.”

Each of these companies’ condoms are free of chemical irritants, dyes, fragrances, and spermicides. As a result, the women using these condoms are experiencing less discomfort. “A lot of these chemicals are on the shelf-condom brands … that can really irritate the vaginal wall. So I think it’s not only empowering to have condoms made with women in mind, but to have control of what’s going inside your body,” Gaines says.

“We get really positive feedback from women because they’re the ones most affected by chemicals in condoms,” Hollender says. As of now, 70% of the condom purchases from Sustain are made by women.

The FDA does not require condom companies to list their ingredients, which can be nerve-racking for those who are particularly sensitive to certain chemicals or ingredients. “There’s really no way for consumers to know what’s in their products other than the companies themselves electing to tell all the ingredients,” Hollender says, adding that Sustain lists all their ingredients online and on the box. She hopes this encourages consumers to demand other companies to also have a level of transparency.

“If you look at all the messages we receive about sex, generally most of this information started in a room of men discussing how things should be taught and it’s told from their worldview,” says Gaines. “And I think there’s an opportunity for women to really rewrite the script around what it means to practice safe [sex] and what it means to be sexually healthy and have sexual wellness.”

Women may not have overthrown the major condom brands just yet, let alone the political and cultural systems that deem their sexual health a low priority. But as they start making big money in an industry that’s long been the domain of men, tucking a condom into one’s purse feels less like a backup option and more of a radical act.

  • HEPA air purifiers may boost brain power in adults over 40 – new research
    Photo credit: Jomkwan/iStock via Getty Images PlusAir pollution can negatively affect the brain.

    Using an in-home HEPA purifier for one month spurs a small but significant improvement in brain function in adults age 40 and older. That’s the result of a new study we co-authored in the journal Scientific Reports.

    HEPA purifiers – HEPA stands for high efficiency particulate air – remove particulate matter from the air. Exposure to particulate matter has been connected to respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses as well as neurological diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Environmental health researchers increasingly recommend that people use HEPA air purifiers in their homes to lower their exposure to particulate matter, but few studies have examined whether using them boosts mental function.

    We analyzed data from a study of 119 people ages 30 to 74 living in Somerville, Massachusetts. Somerville sits along Interstate 93 and Route 28, two major highways, resulting in relatively high levels of traffic-related air pollution. This makes it an especially good location for testing the health effects of air purifiers.

    We randomly assigned participants to one of two groups. One used a HEPA air purifier for one month and then a sham air purifier – which looked and acted like the real thing but did not contain the air-cleaning filter – for one month, with a month-long break in between. The second group used the real and sham purifiers in reverse order.

    After each month, participants took a test that measured different aspects of their mental capacity. The test probed people’s visual memory and motor speed skills by measuring how quickly they could draw lines between sequential numbers, and it tested executive function and mental flexibility by asking them to draw lines between alternating sequential numbers and letters.

    We found that participants 40 years and older – about 42% of our sample – on average completed the section testing for mental flexibility and executive function 12% faster after using the HEPA purifier than after using the sham purifier. That was true even when we accounted for factors like differences in the amount of time participants spent indoors, with either filter, as well as how stressful they found the test.

    This improvement may seem small, but it is similar to the cognitive benefits that people experience from increasing their daily exercise. While you may not experience a sudden increase in clarity from a 12% boost, preventing cognitive decline is vital for long-term well-being. Even small decreases in cognitive functioning may be associated with a higher risk of death.

    Why it matters

    Air pollution can negatively affect mental function after just a few hours of exposure. Studies show that air purifiers are effective at reducing particulates, but it’s unclear whether these reductions can prevent cognitive harm from ongoing pollution sources like traffic. Research has been especially lacking in people living near major sources of air pollution, such as highways.

    People living near highways or major roadways are exposed to more air pollution and also experience higher rates of air pollution-related diseases. These risks aren’t encountered by all Americans equally: People of color and low-income people are more likely to live near highways or areas with heavy traffic.

    Our study shows that HEPA air purifiers may offer meaningful health benefits under these circumstances.

    What still isn’t known

    Research shows that air pollution begins to affect cognitive function especially strongly around age 40. These effects may become increasingly prominent as people age.

    HEPA air purifiers may therefore be especially beneficial for older adults. Our study did not explore this possibility, as fewer than 10 of our 119 participants were over the age of 60.

    Also, our participants only used a HEPA air purifier for one month. It’s possible that longer durations of air purification may sustain or even increase the improvement in cognitive function we observed in our study.

    Finally, it is unclear exactly how air purifiers improve cognition. Some studies suggest that exposure to particulate matter reduces the amount of the brain’s white matter, which helps brain cells conduct electrical signals and maintains connections between brain regions. The brain regions most harmed by air pollution are the ones that control mental flexibility and executive function, the same domains in which we saw improvements in our study.

    We plan to study whether reducing particulate matter by using air purifiers is indeed protecting the brain’s white matter, and whether it could reverse some cognitive decline. We will explore that possibility by studying how levels of molecules called metabolites, which cells produce as they do their jobs, change in response to breathing polluted air and air cleaned by a HEPA filter.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • Placebo effect can work as well as real medicine – but your body may need permission to use it
    Photo credit: Irina Marwan/Moment via Getty Images From empty pills to homeopathy to sham surgery, placebos have powerful effects on the body.

    The first time the placebo effect really got under my skin was when I read that roughly one-third of people with irritable bowel syndrome improve on placebo treatments alone. Usually this statistic is presented as a fascinating quirk of medicine. My reaction was anger.

    Humanity possesses an extremely effective treatment, with essentially zero side effects – and patients need someone else’s permission to use it.

    The placebo effect refers to the improvements in symptoms that patients experience after they’re given an inert treatment like a sugar pill. Driven by expectation, context and social cues rather than pharmacology, the placebo effect is often dismissed as all in the mind. But decades of research have shown it is anything but imaginary.

    Placebo treatments can trigger measurable changes in the brain, immune system and hormone function. In studies on pain, placebos cause the brain to release endorphins, the body’s natural opioids. In Parkinson’s disease, placebo injections increase dopamine activity in the brain. The placebo effect isn’t magic. It’s biology.

    Having spent nearly a quarter-century teaching evolutionary medicine, I’ve come to see placebos not as curiosities of clinical trials but as windows into how human biology responds to social signals. And it’s that relationship that is exactly what makes the placebo effect unsettling.

    Medicine works, even when it isn’t medicine

    The placebo effect is so reliable that researchers must account for it in nearly every clinical trial.

    When testing a new drug, scientists compare its effects to what patients experience on a placebo treatment like sugar pills, saline injections or sham surgery. If the drug doesn’t outperform the placebo, it rarely reaches the public. Placebo responses are common and powerful enough to rival active treatments.

    Even surgery isn’t immune to the placebo effect. In several well-documented studies of knee procedures, patients who received sham operations – incisions without the full surgical repair – improved almost as much as those who received the real procedure.

    Clinician in scrubs and gloves holding wrist of patient lying on a hospital bed
    The experience of going under the knife can itself be healing. Jacob Wackerhausen/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    Clearly something real is happening inside the body. But the strangest part of the placebo effect is not that it works. It’s what makes it work.

    The prescription of belief

    Placebo treatments tend to be more effective when delivered by credible authorities. Pills work better when prescribed by doctors wearing white coats. Expensive pills outperform cheap ones. Injections produce stronger responses than tablets.

    Some researchers have even removed the deception from placebo experiments entirely. In open-label placebo studies, patients are directly told they are receiving a placebo; and yet many still report significant improvement.

    But look more closely at how these studies are run. Patients are not simply handed a sugar pill and sent home. They receive an explanation from a clinician, in a medical setting, within a structured ritual of care: a context that may be doing much of the biological work.

    Even when the deception disappears, the social scaffolding remains. The permission to heal is still being granted by someone else.

    The placebo effect extends beyond the patient

    The placebo effect is often framed as something happening inside an individual. But it does not operate in isolation.

    Consider what happens in veterinary medicine. Dogs and cats cannot believe a treatment they’re given will work; they have no concept of receiving medication. Yet when owners and vets believe an animal is being treated, they consistently report improvements in pain and mobility that medical tests do not confirm.

    In one study of dogs with osteoarthritis, owners reported improvement roughly 57% of the time for animals receiving only a placebo.

    Dog resting head against person's arm while vet inspects a front leg
    Is Fido feeling better, or is the placebo effect working on you? Chalabala/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    The animals themselves may not have improved. But the humans caring for them perceived they had. The healing signal, it turns out, travels through the humans in the room.

    When healing makes things worse

    There have been times when going to the doctor made you less likely to survive. In the 19th century, mainstream medicine was built on bloodletting, purging and doses of mercury and arsenic – treatments that killed as often as they cured.

    Homeopathy emerged in the late 18th century precisely in this context. Its founder, Samuel Hahnemann, was a physician horrified by the harm the conventional medicine of his time was causing. His highly diluted versions of contemporary remedies did nothing pharmacologically. But they also did not kill people, which put them decisively ahead of the competition.

    Homeopathic patients not only survived but also reported dramatic recoveries from chronic ailments and acute infections alike. During the cholera epidemics of the mid-1800s, patients at homeopathic hospitals had lower death rates than those receiving standard care. Why was that?

    The standard cholera treatment of the era was aggressive and exhausting; for a disease that already caused massive fluid loss, doctors often prescribed further bloodletting, along with toxic purgatives such as calomel – a form of mercury – to “flush” the system. In contrast, homeopathic care involved extreme dilutions of substances in water or alcohol, effectively providing hydration and a calm, structured environment without the physiological assault.

    Death rates were lower not because homeopathy worked but because the placebo effect – combined with not poisoning patients – was more effective than the medicine of the day.

    Healing is not free

    The body needs resources to heal from injury and disease. Activating systems such as immune responses, tissue repair and inflammation at the wrong time can be dangerous.

    A full-scale immune response is metabolically expensive, with fever increasing metabolic rate by roughly 10% per degree Celsius rise in body temperature. Triggered at the wrong time, this can deplete critical energy reserves needed for immediate survival, such as escaping a predator. Furthermore, misplaced or overzealous inflammation causes collateral damage to healthy tissues, potentially leading to chronic dysfunction.

    Some researchers have proposed that placebo responses reflect a kind of biological health governor: a system that regulates when the body invests heavily in recovery. Cues from trusted individuals may be exactly the signal the body waits for before committing resources to recovery. A caregiver’s reassurance, a physician’s authority and the rituals of medicine may tell the body that conditions are finally stable enough to devote energy to healing.

    If that interpretation is correct, the placebo effect is not a trick of the mind. It is an ancient biological system responding to social information.

    Body under stress

    The placebo effect resembles another system people struggle with today: the stress response.

    Stress evolved to keep you alive in the face of acute danger – predators, famine, immediate physical threat. These days, this useful piece of biological engineering might fire when someone hasn’t replied to your email. The system that once saved people’s lives now makes many miserable over things that would have been unimaginable to their ancestors.

    You can talk back to the stress response, consciously reappraising the threat – in other words, reframing a looming deadline not as a catastrophe but as a manageable challenge – to help quiet it. But notice what you cannot do: You cannot simply decide to activate your placebo response. You cannot will yourself to release pain-relieving endorphins by believing hard enough in a sugar pill. For that, you still need the ritual, the white coat, the authority figure. You need someone else.

    The stress response, misfiring as it is, remains yours. The placebo response has been outsourced: not because it wasn’t always social, but because even now, people still can’t seem to access it on their own.

    The uncomfortable implication

    The placebo effect is not a trick of the mind. It is a feature of human biology that people have largely surrendered to whoever performs authority most convincingly.

    If belief can activate biological healing pathways, belief can also be manipulated. Charismatic figures, elaborate medical rituals and expensive treatments may produce real improvement in symptoms even when the underlying treatment is physiologically inert. That is how wellness culture works. It leverages the same social scaffolding of care to trigger the body’s internal pharmacy, regardless of whether the treatment itself does anything.

    The placebo effect is often celebrated as proof that the mind can heal the body. But I believe that may not be its most interesting lesson. It also reveals that human physiology evolved to take its cues from other people. Your brain, immune system and pain response are not isolated machines. They are deeply intertwined with social signals, expectations and trust.

    In a world filled with doctors, advertisements, wellness influencers and elaborate medical rituals, that insight is both fascinating and profoundly maddening. People are walking around with one of the most powerful healing systems ever documented locked inside them, and they can reliably access it only when someone in a position of authority gives them permission.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • She called it a green flag when her date cooked a healthy meal for her. But then he explained which organ he was protecting.
    Photo credit: CanvaA man cooks for his date at home.
    ,

    She called it a green flag when her date cooked a healthy meal for her. But then he explained which organ he was protecting.

    “I am dating a dummy. But he is my little dummy, and no one can take that away from me ever.”

    Alexandra Sedlak had been seeing a man for over a month and things were going well. He was thoughtful, attentive, and one day invited her over for a homemade dinner. She immediately catalogued this as a green flag.

    She was right to be touched. He had actually thought about what she would like. She’s health-conscious, so he tailored the meal to her preferences. As they sat down he proudly explained what he’d made and why.

    It was designed, he told her, for her prostate health.

    dating, relationships, viral video, humor, couples
    A visibly confused woman tries to think. Photo credit: Canva

    Sedlak asked him if he meant his prostate health.

    He confidently said no. He meant hers.

    Sedlak, an actress and filmmaker with 145K Instagram followers, shared the moment in a video posted on November 22, 2025 under her handle @alexandrasedlak. She described the progression from delight to confusion with great precision. “I am dating a dummy,” she concluded in the video. “But he is my little dummy, and no one can take that away from me ever.”

    For reference: the prostate is a gland in the male reproductive system, located below the bladder. Women do not have one. A study published in PMC found that men’s knowledge of gynecologic anatomy tends to be significantly lower than women’s, which at least provides some scientific context for this particular gap running in the other direction.

    The comments were predictably delighted. One person suggested she invite him over and cook a meal focused on his ovulation health, then casually ask what part of his cycle he’s in. Another compared him to a golden retriever who should be given head scratches and told he’s a good boy.

    He is very caring. He cooked her a whole meal. The organ was wrong but the intention was right.

    For more relationship-based content, follow @alexandrasedlak on Instagram.

Explore More Health Stories

Health

Placebo effect can work as well as real medicine – but your body may need permission to use it

Health

She called it a green flag when her date cooked a healthy meal for her. But then he explained which organ he was protecting.

Health

It’s a myth that baby boys are less social than girls – a new look at decades of research shows all babies are born to connect

Well-being

Licensed therapist shares 6 signs you’re doing a lot better than you think you are