Tree air freshener and whoopie cushion baby costumes

 Mgen Merchandiser 21185  Mgen Merchandiser 19206-1
BB pal Vann Hall found a terrific selection of odd halloween costumes for children, including this Little Trees car air freshener outfit. It appears to be a Little Trees-licensed product, yet they spelled "Freshener" incorrectly on the costume. Link

And if an air freshener costume isn't quite right for your baby, how about a Woopie (SIC) Cushion or Peeps peep, also available in adult sizes.

UPDATE: Greg from Daddy Types points out that that the trademarked name is indeed "Freshner."


  1. I think it’s interesting that they (ostensibly) licensed the Little Trees design, but made up an inferior knock-off of the classic Whoopie Cushion design. The real one with the Margaret Dumont type as the victim and the little “pooh!” is so much better. I wonder who owns that…

  2. These kids are going to be so embarrassed when they become teens. One is a fart creator and the other a fart supressor.

  3. Look at my baby’s elephant costume with it’s… ermm trunk!

    My wife and I got this cute costume for our new baby’s first Halloween. Unfortunately, it comes with a not-so-subtle extra feature. I’m shocked by how detailed the extra feature is.

    We complained to the company,, but have so far received no response. We’re quickly trying to get rid of this thing. Here is the same costume as advertised:

  4. Jacob, when I read that comment I thought you were probably being oversensitive. Then I looked at the photos.


    Only someone with an extraordinarily clean mind could have come up with that design.

  5. My wife originally got our baby a chicken costume which I thought was kind of humiliating and did not approve. So she got this one instead. Now the chicken suit isn’t looking so bad.

    Jacob :)

  6. re: the elephant costume:

    The “tongue” may not be obvious on the web site photo, but it is definitely present … it just looks a LOT less testicular. I wouldn’t be surprised if the photographer saw exactly the same thing that you did, and desperately hunted for the only possible angle where the association wasn’t immediately obvious. Certainly the picture is deceptive enough that you should be able to get your money back from the site.

    Honestly, though, don’t you think that the costume would still look pretty phallic even WITHOUT the tongue making the illusion complete? The trunk stands straight up, and it has a shiny pink satin knob at the end. I have a feeling you would have been nearly as uncomfortable with seeing your daughter wearing it even if that “extra” part hadn’t been on there.

Comments are closed.