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.

  • New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years
    Photo credit: CanvaResearchers found what's preventing us from living longer.
    ,

    New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years

    Humans can live much longer if certain barriers are addressed.

    According to the Guinness Book of World Records, the oldest person lived to the ripe age of 122 years old. Such a lifespan is an incredible feat, but what if the average person could beat that record by 34 years? Recent research done in Russia has led scientists to believe that the average human lifespan could be up to 156 years.

    The researchers at Skoltech Biomed Technologies Center developed a mathematical model that allowed them to “switch on” a variety of aging mechanisms. This allowed them to calculate a human’s lifespan where mortality risk never increased with age. After experimenting with different scenarios and conditions, they found the biggest barriers to longevity were caused by non-renewable tissues and somatic mutations.

    What are these barriers against longer life?

    Somatic mutations are DNA changes within a cell. They accumulate over time during a human’s life and cannot be reversed with any existing therapy. These DNA errors that pile up in our cells contribute to the aging process.

    Many human organs like the liver and skin continually replace cells and regrow damaged portions of themselves. However, there are two organs that can’t do this: the brain and the heart. Brain tissue (neurons) and heart tissue (cardiomyocytes) cannot regenerate. This proves to be the most prominent biological limit that shortens our lifespans. This explains why issues like dementia and heart disease are prominent causes of death and morbidity later in life. Since those organs’ tissues don’t replace damaged cells, they’re prone to irrevocably decline over time.

    “The key finding of the study is the discovery of substantial differences between tissue types. Neurons and cardiomyocytes, which lack the ability to divide, turned out to be the main limiting factors: when all other causes of aging are eliminated, somatic mutations alone reduce the theoretical median lifespan from 1,759 years (for a hypothetical non-aging human organism) to 156 years,” said Evgeny Efimov, a research intern at the Skoltech Biomed Technologies Center, researcher at AIRI, and one of the key authors of the study.

    This suggests that somatic mutations and DNA damage is what ultimately prevents humans from living indefinitely, even if our brains and hearts regenerated cells like other organs.

    So what’s next?

    Now knowing these biological limitations, the researchers hope to study other areas of aging impacting the human lifespan that could plausibly be reversed. This includes mitochondrial dysfunction, telomere shortening, epigenetic drift, and loss of proteostasis. 

    The hope is to have a clearer priority list of issues for future therapies to tackle. This is not just to possibly extend life, but to improve lives in general. By developing a fully comprehensive theory of aging, Skoltech hopes to pinpoint which aspects of aging are within our scope to address. After all, thoroughly studying each puzzle piece that makes up human life gives us a better understanding of the whole.

    Of course, other impactful factors in a person’s lifespan can be addressed today. As most know, things like diet, sleep, and exercise are among them. A person’s living environment can also negatively impact their lifespan if it doesn’t have clean air, access to clean water, and so on.

    For now, the best method for living long is to follow instructions from your physician. Whether you make it to 156 years or not, living well is best for whatever time you’re given.

  • Screen time guidelines for kids and adolescents have shifted as research paints a more nuanced picture
    Photo credit: PeopleImages/iStock via Getty ImagesWhat kids are doing on tablets seems to matter more than how long they use them.

    Concerns surrounding young people’s screen time are widespread.

    Australia became the first country to ban social media for users under 16 in December 2025, and DenmarkFrance and the U.K. have since announced similar restrictions to begin this year.

    In the U.S., as of mid-2026, more than 30 states have passed laws banning or restricting cellphones in K–12 classrooms; in 2023, the U.S. surgeon general issued a formal advisory on social media and children’s and adolescents’ mental health; and bestselling books tell parents that smartphones are “rewiring” their children’s brains.

    These concerns and policies are part of a quickly changing national and international conversation around how young people spend time on screens and its relationship to their overall health and development. My reading of the mounting research on this issue across disciplines is that the popular narrative blaming screens and smartphones for an adolescent mental health crisis runs well ahead of the current evidence.

    I study adolescent digital media use and its influence on social, emotional and academic outcomes. A growing body of research suggests that one-size-fits-all solutions are not the answer and that managing appropriate use of digital media needs to take into account a child’s developmental milestones, how parents and adults around them use media, and the ways kids use it to connect and learn with friends and family.

    Screen time: From monolith to multifaceted

    Wide adoption of digital media and the internet broadened the range of experiences young people could have online. At the same time, the digital age introduced newfound uncertainties. As with the advent of radio, comic books and arcades, adults worried about how children might interact with or be affected by internet use.

    In response, the American Academy of Pediatrics first recommended in 1999 that parents and caregivers keep children under 2 away from screens. In the decades since, professional guidance largely treated children’s media use as a behavior to be mitigated.

    Policies introduced by the academy in 2013 and 2016 continued to advise that school-age kids and adolescents – those ages 5 to 18 – be restricted to no more than two hours of “entertainment” screen time a day. The goal was to curb risks associated with heavy media use, among them disrupted sleep, online safety, cyberbullying and physical inactivity.

    Originally created for young people’s engagement with stationary media that tend to be confined to one room or context – for example, watching television – these hourly limits became outdated with the integration of smartphones and other digital devices into everyday life. Compared with watching television, online media was far more difficult to track and define, and more nuanced in its use.

    Developmentally beneficial activities such as educationsocializing and leisure have come to rely on the internet to extend and maintain face-to-face connections. Remote schooling and social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic only accelerated this digitization of daily life.

    In my view, adopting strict time limits and restrictions could pose risks to children’s well-beingautonomy and development, for example, by harming adolescent self-esteem.

    The latest guidelines

    In January 2026, the American Academy of Pediatrics retired its decade-old framework that had largely organized its advice around hourly screen limits. The new policy statement on children, adolescents and digital media diverges from this blanket approach. Instead, it suggests parents consider the larger picture in which this media use exists rather than lumping all screen use together.

    Similar to the World Health Organization’s 2019 guidance for children under 5, the American Academy of Pediatrics still advises that parents avoid screen media for children younger than 18 months. This recommendation is largely because extended use by children by themselves can be problematic for many young children, crowding out important developmental milestones.

    Both the World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics also recommend that when children under 24 months use screens, they should be limited to content and devices that encourage children and caregivers to interact. For ages 2 to 5, screen time – including TV and interactive apps on devices – may be extended to more solo use, provided it’s high-quality digital media designed around learning goals in mathematics and reading. But recreational use should be limited to roughly an hour per day.

    For school-age children and teens, the newest guidance has begun to step away from fixed screen time limits and asks families to weigh online activity in the context of everyday life.

    Doing so recognizes that a child’s digital experiences are shaped by diverse factors rather than the hours spent online. Current guidelines call on caregivers to distinguish among types of media, from television and social media to video games and interacting with artificial intelligence chatbots. They also call for taking into account a child’s individual characteristics, such as their interests and personality, family members’ own use of screens, and the type of content children are spending time on.

    Rethinking screen time

    Moving beyond strict screen time limits includes questioning the kind of digital activities kids and adolescents participate in. Do the activities encourage time spent interacting with others online, which can help young people develop important skills and competencies?

    Scrolling an algorithm-based, auto-playing video feed likely does not equate to the same opportunities as video-chatting with friends, creating digital art or working with teammates in a multiplayer game. Research suggests these different uses relate to development in different ways and can help kids develop varying skill sets pertaining to everyday life and schooling.

    Indeed, a large review of current research found that young people who take part in a range of digital activities, such as browsing the web, online gaming or interacting on social media, show positive associations with social connection, identity exploration, civic participation and learning.

    A woman and two small children look at tablet screen
    Parental involvement in young children’s screen time has developmental benefits. Cultura Creative/Tetra images via Getty Images

    Using these guidelines at home

    The current evidence suggests parents and caregivers are best positioned to be digital instructors. Cutting children off altogether can carry its own risks for social and emotional development. Caregiver mediation of children’s screen time can produce widely different outcomes and effects, depending on whether the guidance is supportive or controlling.

    Considering your own digital media use is the first step: Are family members engaging in problematic or heavy media use that children in the household might emulate? What applications and uses are most common in the family, and what positive or negative effects might they have, depending on the child’s age? How could these digital activities be safely integrated with other everyday experiences to increase their benefit for children? Conversely, what online time might be better spent on face-to-face experiences?

    The American Academy of Pediatrics’ Family Media Plan tool turns these ideas into concrete questions. For example, it recommends working out what each child needs from digital technology, what activities screens might be crowding out, and where their family or household can build in screen-free time. The recommendation is to talk with each child about why they are drawn to particular apps or online activities, what they encounter while browsing, and what might be lost when kids bring phones to gatherings such as mealtimes.

    The debate over young people’s screen time is not going away. But the most up-to-date guidelines, and the growing body of research behind them, make a strong case for a more holistic approach. The guidelines treat digital media as a complex, diverse and evolving environment that children need to learn to navigate in the digital age. The risks and rewards depend, as with any developmental setting, on the child, the content and what online time might be crowding out.

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

  • ER doctor and mom sets the record straight for parents of kids with e-bikes and e-scooters
    Photo credit: CanvaA boy rides an e-scooter, left, while a girl is examined in an emergency room.

    An emergency room doctor and fellow mom has been noticing a troubling trend: Many parents are giving their kids something more powerful than bicycles to get around the neighborhood. As a result, she’s seeing more children come into the ER with injuries sustained in e-bike and e-scooter crashes. She recently went online with a plea to parents and young riders.

    Dr. Meghan Elizabeth Beach Martin, known online as Dr. Beachgem, posted a video in her scrubs discussing her concerns after seeing so many children come into the hospital with e-bike injuries during the summer months. She’s worried that too many kids and parents don’t understand the proper safety precautions. As a mother herself, she even questions why children are allowed to ride these devices at all.

    In the video, the doctor explains that some e-bikes can reach speeds of up to 28 mph. She says that if an e-bike goes any faster than that, it’s technically classified as a motorcycle. At those speeds, she regularly sees children with traumatic injuries and broken bones after hitting bumps, cracks in the road, or other vehicles. Many of them aren’t wearing helmets or protective pads, and some are even riding barefoot, making their injuries even more severe. Martin’s video has gained traction on Reddit and elsewhere online.

    E-bikes and e-scooters, examined

    Martin isn’t the only professional seeing a growing problem. The American College of Surgeons reports that there are more than 20,000 e-bike-related injuries each year. Meanwhile, a University of California, San Francisco study found that e-bike injuries doubled annually from 2017 to 2022. The same study found that e-scooter injuries increased by 45% each year during the same period.

    Before riding an e-bike, it’s important to follow proper safety procedures. Make sure you and your child understand your area’s laws regarding e-bikes, including any minimum age requirements. Always wear a helmet and other protective gear when riding. Consider choosing an e-bike with safety features such as motor-interrupt brake levers and disc brakes. These are just a few of the many safety tips experts recommend.

    The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has similar safety tips for e-scooter riders. Wearing a helmet is one of its top recommendations, along with taking other basic precautions. The agency also recommends checking the brakes before riding and slowing down for bumps, cracks, and other road hazards.

    The vast majority of e-scooters and e-bikes are designed for only one rider, so avoid doubling up. Although laws vary by state and locality, wearing more protective gear is always the safer choice. Riders should also review local e-bike and e-scooter laws to make sure they are operating the vehicles safely and legally.

    A little research goes a long way toward making sure you and your children can ride safely. It’s also important for parents to understand that many e-bikes and e-scooters can travel at speeds that make them very different from a traditional bicycle. The last thing you want is for you or your child to become another emergency room statistic.

Explore More Health Stories

Health

Screen time guidelines for kids and adolescents have shifted as research paints a more nuanced picture

Care

ER doctor and mom sets the record straight for parents of kids with e-bikes and e-scooters

Health

May cause joy: The full-spectrum health benefits of dance 

Research

Why we crave company