- Premium reviews
- Express reviews
- Reviews rated
- Ratings received
I'm very impressed with thetrainline.com, I've never had any problem getting my tickets cheaply and easily, their website is pretty and functional, and their staff at the end of the telephones are very nice too. I've bought about 5 tickets so far on the trainline.com now, and this is how it works... On the homepage, you chose to look up train times and prices, and chose where you're going from, and to, and when. This is basic information that they use to get a rough idea of what you're after, and you can manipulate it a bit more at a later time. On the second page, you may be asked to varify which station you want to go from/to, from their lists, and chose, say, to arrive before a certain time, and leave after a certain time. It's very easy to use with lots of drop-down menus, and I think it's great the way you can opt to arrive/leave before/after a certain time as you don't have to use your brain at all! You can also chose to avoid a certain station, or to have the cheapest or fastest tickets. On the next page, you get a big table come up on the screen, and you have to chose, by ticking boxes, which journey you want. I've found that often I'm booking in advance, and the "virgin 3 day advance" tickets don't automatically show up, and you have to click on the left hand side of the table on "show tickets" to get the full choice. Another thing I like is what you see is what you pay, no postage and packaging or booking fees. so you chose when you want to go/come back, and toddle onto the payment page. At this stage, they will ask you to register if you haven't already done so. At this point I always forget my password, as it has to have both letters AND numers in it, so it's quite obscure, but it is very quick to email it to you if you should forget it. Once you've registered, you can chose to save your credit/debit card details to
o which I've done, so I don't even need to open my wallet! You also get choices as to where you want to get your tickets from. If you're booking far in advance, they will post them to you. But if it's a bit too late, you have to pick them up from a central station, or from a fast-ticket machine, for which you need a PIN number. I live in Coventry at the moment, and I can't pick up tickets from Coventry station, I'd have to go to Birmingham, which is a pain, but if you book far enough in advance, you avoid this and they will post your tickets to you very quickly. Now we come to why I like this service so much... On many an occasion now I've booked a ticket at about 3.30 in the afternoon, and the following morning I've received my tickets in the post. It's really really efficient and I'm impressed. My postal service up here isn't great, and I was worried once that my tickets wouldn't arrive in time, so the moment I booked my tickets online, I rang them. Seconds after I'd put my details online they had them on their system and knew exactly what I was talking about. They reassured me that if they didn't arrive in time, I'd be able to get another set of tickets printed off at the station, which I thought was very impressive. Needless to say, they arrived the following day anyway! After you get your tickets, your dealings with thetrainline.com are over, and it's up to the train companies to actually be on time but that's another story! All in all, I'm very happy with their service, and will be using it again.
Just keep telling yourself that as you rip the hairs out of your poor leggies and it'll all be fine. I bought this epilator just before Christmas after trying my housemates version, and was very impressed with it. The epilator itself looks very stylish, and comes with a little brush to clean it, a mains lead (NOT a charger, it's not rechargable just runs off the mains), a case and a little loofah thing too. The idea is this....you have a nice shower or bath and scrub your legs with the loofah pad. Then you dry them and settle down (preferably with a glass of wine to help get rid of the pain, that's my excuse anyway), and switch it on. Don't be alarmed by the sound, it's rather noisy. If you want to, put the little rubber "massagy" bits up as it massages your legs just before you rip the hairs out and sort of helps to get rid of the pain. Then you rub it up your legs against the direction of the hair, yes, it hurts, but it leaves really nice smooth legs for ages. You can build up to doing your armpits, as they really really hurt, but again, it's worth it. 10 seconds of pain for fuzz-free life is really good. Also, don't worry about your bikini line, it's not painful at all for some reason. My housemate had the version of this epilator with the cool pack. We found it to be rather a waste of time and money as it's designed for the cold to get to your legs AFTER the hairs are yanked out. What use is that? I think this epilator is perfect. It's got two speeds so you can warm yourself up to it, but basically it's a "grin and bear it" type affair. I recomment moisturising too afterwards, and do your armpits before you go to sleep and don't need any deodorant as it's a bit stingy. All in all, really worth it for the £30 I paid for it. If you don't believe me, Philips do a 60 day satisfaction guarantee type thing so if you really don'
t like it you can send for a full refund from them. What do you have to lose?!?
I was very impressed with Collection 2000 nail varnish and mascara as a cheap and cheerful brand, so I thought I'd have a crack at the lipstick they have on offer. I bought a very light shade of pink, and was very excited about the colour as i'd been looking for it for ages. I can't remember having a problem with the lipstick for the first dozen or so applications, but when I tried it a few months after purchase it was awful. When I first bought it, the colour was lovely, and applied very easily, giving a nice, matt, but sparkly finish to my lips. And it used to last for a decent amount of time, definitely through a night out... Now, I'm not at all impressed with it, it applied in clumps, and looked awful. It's one of those nightmare type lipsticks that you apply in the dark and looks dreadful. I know that you are supposed to replace makeup every 6 months or so, but let's face it, none of us do. The moer expensive brands last longer than the cheaper ones, and Collection 2000 lipstick proves this point. It's fine on the day you buy it, but gets more and more clumpy and disappointing as time goes on. All in all, yes, it's cheap and cheerful, for a while, then you have to bin it sadly...
I dont know about the whole "prostitution" thing, as I'm not very sure about where the boundaries about paying for sex and prostitution lie. As far as I've gathered from the telly, prostitution is when you go out looking for sex etc, but people pay escorts for sex all the time, and that doesn't seem to be illegal. And as far as I can see, escorting involves more posh clothes and dinners than prostitution, but other than that they are basically the same.......paying for sex. So....should it be legalised? Well, people use sex all the time to get what they want, be it flashing a bit of bra in the office to get a promotion to Monica-Lewinsky style efforts. But having sex for money appears to be illegal. But all it is is providing a service to others. Maybe it's the way people illicit their clients that's different from escorting. Either way, it's going to happen whether you make it legal or not, so we may as well support it as a nation rather than out-law these people who chose to make sex their life. After all, in some way or another, we all do that. And we're all after a way of paying our way. So long as it's safe in the health sense of the word, and in the "safe from attack" sense, I think that yes, sex for money should be legalised. It'd provide a safety barrier for those involved, and some sort of health protection, let alone not making sex for money an "underground" activity. yes, it's rather a-moral, but people do it. So we should protect those that chose to make it their livelihoods.
Smoking in public has always been one of my gripes. Can't stand it, and I think that even if I was a smoker, I'd want it banned. I don't mind drinking in public, or anything silly that doesn't harm anyone else, but passive smoking seems to me to be more potent and risky than smoking the damn fag yourself. It's not being filtered as it enters your lungs, as the smoke is directly from the unfiltered end of the cigarette. So more tar for non-smokers. Very fair. Also, it stinks. Full stop. And why should innocent bystanders be forced to go home stinking of yuk aswell as all the pints they've had poured down them. At least the side-effects of being with drunk people doesn't directly impinge on your health like this does. Basically, smoking smells, and makes you smell. Being forced to be damaging your health when you haven't chosen to isn't fair, and so neither is smoking in public. That includes in the street, pubs and clubs. Infact, anywhere where non-smokers (and especially children) gather. This leaves a problem for smokers. They do have a basic right to smoke, but it's not fair in public. Maybe there should be a designated "smoking room" in pubs and clubs where people who don't smoke don't have to go? Certainly smoking in places where children go isn't on. Parks and greenland should be no-smoking areas for sure, as it's really damaging to wildlife and children. I think there's a big problem with accommodating for smokers in public, as they have to do it somewhere, but it really isn't fair to stand in public blowing smoke in innocent people's hair. It's just yuk.
Do people normally accept things without having any evidence? Of course I do. If someone told me that bananas only come in blue, and had little wee wings on them of course I'd believe them without question or seeking confirmative evidence, i.e. blue flying bananas. But there aren't any. Let's go straight for the jugular here. There is NO evidence for life after death, and there never will be. So if you chose to believe it, then fine, believe it. If you don't, don't, but whatever you do, don't disagree with someone who disagrees with you. After all, you'll never know until you're dead (and in my opinion, it's too late then). So, why do people believe in life after death? It's probably a rather nice idea that death isn't final, people may say that's a rather cowardly approach to life, after all, it doesn't "really" finish" when the nice little man in the hospital pulls the sheet over your face at all, you've got another chance! In heaven. And if you aren't nice on earth, you'll go to hell. Fantastic opportunity for bribery there. There's nothing worse than burning with Satan for the rest of your days is there! I shouldn't be so cynical about all this, but I'm not religous at all. But unlike many people, I do appreciate the role that these ideas have in society. It's very scary to think that when you die that's it, and if you can't accept that, then "life after death" is very comforting. I don't, by the way, believe in "near death" experiences, there's always a logical reason. And as for the light a the end of the tunnel thing, that's been scientifically proven to be a Physical part in the dying process. It happens to everyone, only some people subsequently recover, and remember this light. Anyway, I'm digressing. Personally I feel strong for not accepting life after death. I know now that what I
do has to happen in the next 50 or so years because after that I've got no chance when I'm 6 foot under. The take-home message here is "live life to the full because after it's over it's over". Life after death is comforting but a little cowardly is't it?
After several applications of this product, I finally found my tan, not exactly where I wanted it but there was a tan nonetheless....let me explain. I bought this fake tan lotion from Boots, as it seemed cheap enough and I (naively) assumed that I'd actually get a tan from using it. There were two options of shade, and as I have a slight tan already, I picked "medium" rather than "light". I'm really glad I did.... on the back of the bottle, it tells me that I'l get a natural tanned look, and it'll help me prolong any existing tan. Great, I thought, and at 6.99 not bad. So I got home, followed the instructions to the letter. Used an exfoliator, yes, admittedly, not Boots own, but still effective emough I thought. And I moisturised really really well. Then I applied evenly, using my hand, which I washed thoroughly afterwards, as recommended. Then I left it to dry. Nothing happened. So I put loads on one leg, and waited. My housemates thought that I'd put fake tan on the OTHER leg, it was that uneffective! So I moved onto my face, which I was nervous about being too orange on, so I was not very liberal with the lotion. After 6 applications and nothing to show, I started being more generous. Last night, I decided "to hell with it", and put loads all over arms and face. Thinking to myself "this stuff doesn't work", I simply wiped my hands down my legs to remove the excess stuff. This morning, I woke up, pasty as ever, with one orange hand. Need I say any more! I don't know why this tanning lotion isn't working on my body, but tangos my hand, but it does. I recommend it as a moisturiser as it's done that job very well, but I think you can probably pay a lot less than 6.99 for a bottle of that! Definitely NOT recommended, unfortunately, I'll return to the body shop for my usual I think. In the meantime, me and my orange hand bid yo
I can't see any reason why gay couples shouldn't get married. But I can also see why they shouldn't too. Gay relationships are in no way less "strong", or valid than heterosexual relationships, so why shouldn't gay people get married too? It's as simple as that really in my eyes. However, in order to throw a few ideas in the air, I'll argue against gay marriage... Firstly, marriage is a religious ceremony. Gay-ness isn't largely accepted in the religions of the world, and as such, the union of two men, or two women, would not be accepted by a religious group. One could also argue that people who aren't religious shouldn't really feel the need for marriage, and shouldn't be accepted by the church to get wed either. But they do. Anti-religious people get married in churches, so why shouldn't religious gays? What I'm trying to say is....if we exclude one group of people from marriage (i.e. gays), we should exclude other groups of people that don't fall within the religious "requirements" (i.e. atheists who fancy a white wedding). But, as a society, we don't. And we should. With regards the whole "marriage" thing, I don't really on the whole beleive in it as an idea. It's expensive, and yes, it's useful legally if you were to split up, but seems rather pointless, hedonistic (is that a word?) thing to do. But I also believe that if people want to get married, or at least, be joined together by law, they should be able to do it. Basically, I'm saying that if you aren't religiousm, you shouldn't get married in a religious ceremony, and if you are gay you shouldn't either. But a lawful union is fine by me. Just so you know....I'm not religious so I won't be getting married in a church...that's if I get married at all. The issue of promiscuity in the gay community is largely assumed to
contribute to peoples opinions that gays shouldn't commit for life....people naively assume that "gay" love isn't as long lasting as "heteroexual love". I believe that it is, and this traditional idea shouldn't be considered. How many straight people do you know who aren't faithful? By the way, I'm not gay. Considering children, gay couples have to realise that they are not capable of producing a child themselves. Duh. Obviously. But should they be allowed to adopt? I have many ideas about adoption, and one of them involves the fact that people who are able to procreate just have kids, and some people are atroscious parents, can't afford it, and are generally bad. Adoption into a "normal" family involves many processes, that people who are able to have children naturally, don't have to put themselves through. You have to prove financial security, a stable relationship and home environment, among other things. If a gay couple meets these requirements, why shouldnt' they adopt? I'm sure anyone who gets through such stringent "tests" will be good parents, and just because people are gay doesn't mean that they don't want children. Let's be a little humane here. I think that's it. Basically, yes, gay union should be legal. Gay marriage, in the religious sense, should be carefully considered, and I really am not too sure on where I stand on this one.
How many times have you heard someone who's just lost a close friend or relative who was very ill say "it's a release from his pain", and "his quality of life was very poor towards the end"? People who are terminally ill, and chose themselves to die, should be given the right to act on that wish. Imagine for example, that someone has a heart attack. Doctors fighting to keep them alive would be very quickly sacked if they didn't try as hard as they could have done, and death resulted. But imagine for a second, what would happen if you decided that if you had a heart attack, you didn't want to be revived. You are asking for the medical services not to help you live. This is a very difficult decision to make, but if it is made with a calm, rational state of mind, why shouldn't we carry out these wishes? Of course, deciding not to resuscitate an otherwise healthy person is the extreme end of the euthanasia scale, and it is more important for us to consider how we feel about people who are terminally ill. They are likely to die very soon, of a painful and degrading disease. Cancer patients, towards the end, are weak and tired. Death is by no means glamourous at the best of times, but shouldn't we be given the chance to end it how we want it to be finished? We don't have to stand up in court and defend our decision to commit suicide do we? We can just go out and do it ourselves, whenever want. Here, we are asking for the law on controlled death to be relaxed, but not to the point where your fate can be decided by someone else, or irrationally, by you. I appreciate that the law on such a subject would be very confusing, and numerous court cases would arise. It's not as if you can undo euthanasia. But at the end of the day, it's that "release" that we all so often talk about. By no means do I condone murder, or the decision of someone else to end a life, but I feel that peo
ple who are terminally ill should be given the right to decide how they die. It's the least we can do really.
I've always been fairly strong-headed, and when I was 14 I simply couldn't understand why people had eating disorders. I mean, we have to eat to remain alive, and why would we want to risk our lives to get thin? I love my food, not excessively, but I couldn't understand why on earth people would starve themselves, or indeed (and worse in my opinion), make themselves sick. Then my attentions moved onto the media. Pictures of stick-thin, actually quite ill-looking young ladies are plastered everywhere, glamourising our skeletons, not our flesh. It's pretty disgusting, I thought, and sad that some people are not able to see that it is UGLY to be that skinny. But people do, and we just have to consider the number of admissions into specialist clinics, let alone the deaths, from eating disorders, to realise that this is a problem, no matter how silly some of us think it is (and I stress that it is only silly because we do not understand it), and it is imperative that we get to the heart of the problem. Marks and Spencer and various other stores have realised that they play a part in glamourising starvation, and I admire their moves to use larger models and no encourage mad dieting. Especially in children. And catwalk models are fattening up a little bit now which I think is great. But it's not the whole picture. No matter how much we blame external problems such as the media and clothes manufacturers, we still have to consider that it is our personal relatioships with others and their attitudes towards us that mould the way we think about ourselves. If our friends are constantly telling us we are fat, or we are bullied at school, is it no surprise that we can develop eating disorders. Last week, I got violent vomiting from food poisoning, and still don't feel 100% now. I am having trouble eating, and am physically scared of eating any food that may make me ill. In a way, I can now see how easily it would be t
o develop an eating problem. I am not eating nearly enough as I should be, and canot eat anything substantial as I worry that the vomiting will return. Such a trauma, at the age of 22 is affecting me far more than I would of ever imagined. I dreadto think how this would effect a younger teenager. Basically, eating disorders are not pathetic, they are not silly, we just cannot understand them unless we are there, experiencing them ourselves.
You also get what you pay for... These two little phrases really sum up this website. Yes, it's a bit tacky, but it's efficient and good value. At the end of the day, if all you want it blank CDs and minidiscs, quickly and painlessly, then I recommend discountdiscs.co.uk. The website isn't all that, but it's OK, giving you a choice of products on an easily-navigated taskbar on the left-hand side. This is all you need really, and I recommend looking at the "special offers". Now I bought some minidiscs from this website a couple of weeks ago. Let me explain.... Firstly, I did a search online to find cheap blank minidiscs. Of course, I got about 20 websites, and not being in a hurry and having free internet access, I browsed several sites. It's all very frustrating, as you make your choice, and then they add VAT and postage, and maybe (if you're really unlucky), you find out that the cases for the minidiscs aren't included in the price. All in all, these hidden extras are really frustrating. So when I found discountdiscs.co.uk, I was impressed that what they quote you on the website is what you pay..postage, packaging, VAT and the cases is included. £20 for 20 good quality discs, very good value. The range of products is great too. They stock the better minidiscs on offer, and at excellent prices. You can order really cheap ones, but it's very good value so I recommend ordering something from their special offers. The prices are also tailored so you pay less per item the more you buy, which is very good. Under each product is a short description of what the product is, and does, too. Very handy. They also have cleaners, blank CDs, headphones, jewel cases, microphones and software, labels, optical leads, various cases and racks for minidiscs, CDs and players. What you see is what you get. So I placed an order, and tehre was a problem w
ith my card. Totally my fault as I put the wrong address down. Very quickly, I received an email from them to ask me to confirm my billing address, which I did. About half an hour later I got an email saying that my order was going fine now. And I wrote back to ask how long it'd be until they sent my minidiscs. They replied saying that they had sent it already, and the following day, the postman knocked on my door with a naff looking envelope for me. It wasn't immediately obvious what was in it, but when I opened it, it was my minidiscs. They were packaged in a jiffy bag, which isn't very glamourous, but they were safe, and got to me quickly and without any problems. All in all, it's not the most swish of websites to shop on, but it's efficient, cheap, and excellent at solving small problems. I'm very impressed, and will definitely order with discountdiscs.co.uk again.
I've never believed in expensive skincare products, and find it really silly to spend a small fortune on stuff when you really need not bother with all those creams and balms and scrubs etc. Don't get me wrong, I have a skincare routine, it's just far cheaper and easy... *** For your face *** For starters, bin the cleanser and toner and buy a bar of soap and a packet of granulated sugar. Yes, granulated sugar. Now, take said sugar, and put about a dessert-spoonful in your hands. Mix with some froth from the soap, and rub it into your face. This is best done in the shower as it can get a bit messy. The sugar exfoliates your skin much better than any £4-a-tube cleanser stuff. Now, stuff expensive moisturisers. Use baby moisturiser which costs about £2 in Tescos for a huge bottle. If you do have any spots, then you can use surgical spirit on them (60p a bottle), to reduce the redness, and then some tea-tree oil too. It disinfects and gets to work on spots. The benefits of all this is to eliminate the amount of chemicals etc. Oh, and drink lots of water, it's really important to make your skin look and feel great. Here's a thought, from a book I was reading (Snake Oil: John Diamond)...if your poncy face cream really did allow water to penetrate into your skin, then surely we'd all dissolve in the next shower of rain? Think about it, it's all rubbish. If you do have a real skin problem, then I really am not one to have an opinion, but my skin has its ups and downs, but using sugar, soap and various other things, my skin is generally fine. Now... *** For your body *** I recommend getting a loofah or one of those plasticy bath ball type things. Anything that's fairly rough will do the job nicely. And.....you guessed it......soap. And baby moisturiser. You really don't need anything else. It may smell nice and poncy, but it's really une
ccessary. I think everything I use for skincare costs me less than a fiver every 3 months. Can't complain really can you?
...and that's not to drink in the first place. But if you must, shame on you... The last thing you should do after a night out is collapse in bed. No matter how drunk you are, or how much you've been sick, you're really well advised to DRINK LOTS. Yes, I know that that's what your mother said to you when you are ill/have the runs. But do it, you'll be glad you did. Why don't you have a pint or 2 of water next to the bed by the bowl you intend to be sick into? It's good to be prepared! One good tip...if you can handle it, is to mix about 6 teaspoons of sugar and 1 teaspoon of salt into your pint (of water)before you drink it. It's horrible, but gives your body what it wants. Alcohol not only dehydrates you, but it also drains the sugar out of your blood. Give it a go, it's realy quite amazing. I've drank a bottle of wine at 2am before, and done this, and been fine to wake up at 7am for work. You could do the obvious "drink one soft drink for every alcoholic drink you have" thing, but let's face it, you won't...it doubles the cost of a night out. Maybe it'd be a good idea to have dairy products before you go out too. They line your stomach and prevent you getting too drunk. But to be honest, thats' not fun is it? You want to get as pissed as quickly as you can, and as cheaply, too. Your best bet is to try the water thing. Tactical spewing is another thing I've seen. Being sick deliberately when you're on a night out so that you can "take more alcohol" really isn't very pleasant, or clever, really. It's expensive as you need more alcohol to get drunk again, and you reek. Please don't do it, you'll never meet ladies smelling of sick (why am I assuming that this is talking to men...)... And whatever you do (after you've been sick) the next morning, DON'T DRINK COFFEE!!! Again, go for a sugary
drink, or even just water. Milk is nice too, but isn't so nice if you are ill. The best thing you can do, even if it is the ONLY thing you can do is to drink water! Once you've got over the sickness, try to eat stuff like pasta and bread which absorbs excess rubbish in your body, and makes you feel a whole lot better! Oh, and if you feel like you're going to be sick, then go for it. It's far better in than out. But remember to replace your fluids. All in all, the key things you need are water, sugar and bland stodgy food. Oh, and a receptical to be sick into (i.e. NOT YOUR BED). Good luck...
I hate being a student because you have to watch what you buy. And food is one of the things that you don't really NEED to spend loads on. Yes, there are little luxuries that you buy sometimes, like chocolate, wine, and the odd extravagance of a....wait for it...microwave meal. I'm happy to buy the supermarket's value food and drink. I'm happy with 15p lemonade and cheap chicken. I won't bother with branded products like "Fairy liquid" or hovis bread, because normally the supermarket's version is absolutely fine. One thing I WILL NOT live with is cheap coffee. I've tried it all, and it's just horrible. Supermarket value coffee should be illegal in my mind. It's horrible and watery, and tastes foul. And when they add chicory to cheap coffee, they should be shot. Even supermarket's own brand doesn't make the mark really. I mean, Kenco Rapport is OK, but it's not Gold Blend is it? If I had the choice, I'd have "proper" coffee every time. By "proper", I mean filter, rather than "cardboard". It's the way my Dad describes it, and I think it's very accurate. Powdered coffee isn't really proper coffee at all. But Gold Blend almost has the texture of filter coffee. It's the closest to "proper" coffee I've found, and I'm not really sure why. But I'll sing it's praises until the cows come home (for a Gold Blend). Gold Blend tastes rich enough without milk or sugar, and as I drink my coffee black that's great for me. It's also very nice if you tend to drink your coffee strong, like I do. It doesn't get the scum on the top if you have 1 1/2 spoons in a cup rather than the recommended 1. The packaging is also nice and unpretentious, which I like. It's just "there", not drawing attention to itself. I like it. And also, the granules aren't that horr
ible dark brown crystally texture you find in cheaper coffee, they are golden and smooth-looking. You like it before you make a cup of it, I find. And the smell is distinctive, smooth, rich, and homely. It's much more like "proper" coffee than anything else. But what I like most about it is the fact that it feels like it's fresh out of the caffetiere, with the slightly grainy texture. It could really fool you into thinking it isn't "cardboard"...so to speak. Basically, it's not the cheapest at £4.18 for 400g, but well worth it. Especially as it always seems to be on offer when I get it. By the way, I've had about 6 strong cups today, and I feel a bit jittery. Not recommended really. I guess the caffeine content is rather high. Now where's that glass of water...
Let's be honest here, just for a minute. Given a choice between tampons and sanitary towels, I'd chose tampons every time. In fact, given the choice of sanitary towels, and "bodging it" with toilet roll (as you have to if you're stuck in the middle of nowhere with no supplies), I'd chose the toilet roll option every time. Why? Because I think that sanitary towels, not matter how "modernised" they've become in the past 10 years of my menstrual life, they are still a bit minging aren't they. For starters, it's just not something that's particularly comfortable to wear, and in my experience if you have ones with "wings", the wings stick to your trousers, and if you have ones without, you may as well have not bothered because the pad tends to gather up in the middle, leaving you unprotected. It is my personal opinion that sanitary towels are a bit stinky too. Maybe it's the idea of the fact that everything is "outside", and open to the air. Whenever I've worn one (which I have to add has only been a backup incase a tampon leaks), I've felt really manky and dirty. And that's before I actually need to use it! Oh, and another thing.....no matter what brand you buy, they still crackle when you walk. Maybe it's me being paranoid, but have towel manufacturers thought that the materials they use make quite a loud sound? I know it's a minging subject to discuss, but if you must read an opinion on sanitary towels, then you asked for it... Sanitary towels are NOT designed to absorb blue watery liquid, so that you can pop it in an envelope and post it somewhere. The stuff pads have to deal with is a totally different substance (I'm trying not to be disgusting here, sorry), and I personally don't feel comfortable using them. Another aside, is the fact that they are far far bulkier than tampons, and
a pain to try to hide if you're on a night out. Give me a tampon any day. I started periods when I was either 11 or 12, and by the afternoon of my first period I was fighting with a tampon, because I hated towels. Since then I have only used towels as a backup "just in case". I feel desparately sorry for those people who cannot use tampons, and I recommend trying tampons to anyone who uses towels at present. Correctly used, they aren't dangerous, despite warnings. Oh, and another thing.......why oh why do they make "g-string towels"? It doesn't make a jot of sense to me.