This is really fuckin adorable.

This is epicly awesome.
(Tanith is a f**in' sexy bomb)

Hell, he improved a lot with his animations, insta fav.

Probably one of the best animations I've seen in a long time.

Was going to comment about how that fox just, sat on that like it was nothing.
And then I remembered a certain 3 letter word I typed.
-fox-

Why do people get turned on by neon colored genitalia? I get it's just different tastes but I mean, there is literally no possible natural equivalent. His cock looks like a pickle. I find it quite a dramatic turn-off. :<

if only he didn't have a green penis this would be so much better

The positioning and angle is probably my favorite thing about this, and the fact that there was actually some knotting! Definitely going on my list of my favorite h0rs3 animations

elad said:
Why do people get turned on by neon colored genitalia? I get it's just different tastes but I mean, there is literally no possible natural equivalent. His cock looks like a pickle. I find it quite a dramatic turn-off. :<

There's also no natural equivalent to Chinese dragons or humanoid foxes. There's also no natural equivalent to chairs, computers or cell phones. Your point is what exactly?

Gosh this is the best animation ever! I mean, his reactions are so real.. like... realistic and natural and almost passionate..

elad said:
Why do people get turned on by neon colored genitalia? I get it's just different tastes but I mean, there is literally no possible natural equivalent. His cock looks like a pickle. I find it quite a dramatic turn-off. :<

post #231459

basically.

Really great however. Horse continues to get better

soaked in radioactive fluid it gained a power to glow and thus it became... SUPAH DICK!!!

Wow, yah more new stuff!

Drakodlak said:
I would love to see a new straight stuff from the artist.

Straight? Since when? i only saw ONE stright job done, the rest are gay.

I think with every new flash h0rs3 does, the character's balls get a little bit bigger.

Anew h0rs3 animation? christmas came early?!?

elad said:
Why do people get turned on by neon colored genitalia? I get it's just different tastes but I mean, there is literally no possible natural equivalent. His cock looks like a pickle. I find it quite a dramatic turn-off. :<

Peter picked a peck of Pickled peckers

Cashuea said:
Wow, yah more new stuff!
Straight? Since when? i only saw ONE stright job done, the rest are gay.

Two. And he could do more.

why was this so adorable???

Green penis... looks like something that's gone rancid or something... XD

elad said:
Why do people get turned on by neon colored genitalia? I get it's just different tastes but I mean, there is literally no possible natural equivalent. His cock looks like a pickle. I find it quite a dramatic turn-off. :<

Because people like what they like and as long as it doesn't harm anyone, then that's alright.

elad said:
Why do people get turned on by neon colored genitalia? I get it's just different tastes but I mean, there is literally no possible natural equivalent. His cock looks like a pickle. I find it quite a dramatic turn-off. :<

because if his character isn't a unique little pickle how will anyone know it's his OC

I wish he would've left an option to keep the knot in until you click. He takes it out too fast :/

Cashuea said
Straight? Since when? i only saw ONE stright job done, the rest are gay.

H0rs3 has done at least 2 straight animations, maybe 3 or 4. He's more focused on gay yiff, which is good, as he has a focus to work on, instead of just bumbling around, trying different things, with nothing relating to the other. Variety is good, but not as good as consistency, and with this focus, he can be extremely consistent.

I always love it when I see new h0rs3 animations. But damned. I got more then I thaught!

PurvBurd said:
There's also no natural equivalent to chairs, computers or cell phones.

Chairs, computers and cell phones arguably are natural. They are made with materials that can be found or manufactured in Nature's sandbox.

As we're getting a little off topic, I'd like to interject that this is of astounding quality, as H0rs3 always delivers, probably because of his ability to, as Roanth suggested, differentiate his material.
im a h0rs3 r us kid

really wonderful, I love it

awww <3

Vemon said:
As we're getting a little off topic, I'd like to interject that this is of astounding quality, as H0rs3 always delivers, probably because of his ability to, as Roanth suggested, differentiate his material.
im a h0rs3 r us kid

Hey, thanks for mentioning me!

Pikawaiichu said:
Did I just turn gay...?

As a furry you have to be Bi to appreciate more porn!

wish there was a loop/closeup of the paw licking

Even for a fox of holding that's pretty impressive

tukamos said:
As a furry you have to be Bi to appreciate more porn!

Agreed.

That chair's gonna break.

Cashuea said:
Wow, yah more new stuff!

Straight? Since when? i only saw ONE stright job done, the rest are gay.

https://e621.net/post/show/58298/3d-animal_genitalia-animated-anus-balls-black_fur-

https://e621.net/post/show/65209/3d-anal-anal_penetration-animal_genitalia-animated

https://e621.net/post/show/172466/2011-3d-animated-anus-ball_fondling-balls-bed-blac

https://e621.net/post/show/204630/animated-balls-bandage-blue_-character-breasts-can

tukamos said:
As a furry you have to be Bi to appreciate more porn!

more realistically, "As a furry you have to be bi because there are very few girls in the fandom, and understandably so. Take what you can get I suppose."

Roanth said:
H0rs3 has done at least 2 straight animations, maybe 3 or 4. He's more focused on gay yiff, which is good, as he has a focus to work on, instead of just bumbling around, trying different things, with nothing relating to the other. Variety is good, but not as good as consistency, and with this focus, he can be extremely consistent.

Oh, boy, I get to do another translation.
"See, he's done straight stuff, but I'm sort of a huge faggot so I'm going to construct an argument supporting his production of more gay stuff; I don't even need to invoke logic. -[opinionated statement]- ...consistency is better than variety... -[opinionated statement]- ...and it's thematically focused, which makes it good because I say it does."

Also, h0rs3 will animate anything anybody asks for if they pay him enough. The fact that he has done a lot of gay animations has absolutely nothing to do with "focus;" it's more or less tangential.

Hyper_Beam said:
more realistically, "As a furry you have to be bi because there are very few girls in the fandom, and understandably so. Take what you can get I suppose."

Hyper_Beam said:
Oh, boy, I get to do another translation.
"See, he's done straight stuff, but I'm sort of a huge faggot so I'm going to construct an argument supporting his production of more gay stuff; I don't even need to invoke logic. -[opinionated statement]- ...consistency is better than variety... -[opinionated statement]- ...and it's thematically focused, which makes it good because I say it does."

Also, h0rs3 will animate anything anybody asks for if they pay him enough. The fact that he has done a lot of gay animations has absolutely nothing to do with "focus;" it's more or less tangential.

"Take what you can get I suppose" Implying that all furries are is desperate need of sex or porn, because otherwise we would not need to 'take what we can get'.
"Oh, boy, I get to do another translation". Grammatical error: you don't need the 1st comma; 'boy' is not separate information that can be removed.
"I'm sort of a huge faggot" I take offense. Who wouldn't?
"I'm going to construct an argument supporting his production of more gay stuff" I like creating arguments and analysing things, OK?
"Consistency is better than variety... -[opinionated statement]" Think about it. if you have one guy with lots of varied stuff, but it's all crap, and one guy that has a focus (therefore less variety), but his stuff is good, who do you pick? The one with the better stuff. Use your brain to create the situation, it may help later.
"which makes it good because I say it does." Hey, I don't want to control people, if that's what you want to imply, and anyone's opinion on this is valid, but if you think more carefully, I have a valid, backed up point that people can associate to.
"nothing to do with "focus;" it's more or less tangential.
A) More grammar: that semi-colon needs to be outside the quote, because I never used a semi-colon after focus.
B) Is he not allowed to deny anything? If he is, then he might not like the ideas that are put forward to him that are straight, and, with or without sexuality in question, denies these.
I hate having to talk to people that don't think like me, and you're about as close as they get so far. I almost let you off for this, but I really couldn't.

Roanth said:

"Take what you can get I suppose" Implying that all furries are is desperate need of sex or porn, because otherwise we would not need to 'take what we can get'.
"Oh, boy, I get to do another translation". Grammatical error: you don't need the 1st comma; 'boy' is not separate information that can be removed.
"I'm sort of a huge faggot" I take offense. Who wouldn't?
"I'm going to construct an argument supporting his production of more gay stuff" I like creating arguments and analysing things, OK?
"Consistency is better than variety... -[opinionated statement]" Think about it. if you have one guy with lots of varied stuff, but it's all crap, and one guy that has a focus (therefore less variety), but his stuff is good, who do you pick? The one with the better stuff. Use your brain to create the situation, it may help later.
"which makes it good because I say it does." Hey, I don't want to control people, if that's what you want to imply, and anyone's opinion on this is valid, but if you think more carefully, I have a valid, backed up point that people can associate to.
"nothing to do with "focus;" it's more or less tangential.
A) More grammar: that semi-colon needs to be outside the quote, because I never used a semi-colon after focus.
B) Is he not allowed to deny anything? If he is, then he might not like the ideas that are put forward to him that are straight, and, with or without sexuality in question, denies these.
I hate having to talk to people that don't think like me, and you're about as close as they get so far. I almost let you off for this, but I really couldn't.

Before I say anything else, I'd like to point out that you've raised only 5 real arguments, 2 of which were just you bitching about grammar. When literally 40% of the content of your rebuttal is complaining about the subtleties of language, it's pretty easy to realize that your methodology could use some work.

"...because otherwise we would not need to 'take what we can get'." Not talking to you, not relevant.

"Grammatical error: you don't need the 1st comma; 'boy' is not separate information that can be removed." Still a full sentence without the word "boy." I also wouldn't care even if that actually were wrong.

"I take offense. Who wouldn't?" Well, I apologize.

"I like creating arguments and analysing things, OK?" k.

"Think about it. if you have one guy with lots of varied stuff, but it's all crap, and one guy that has a focus (therefore less variety), but his stuff is good, who do you pick?" I don't know if you were trying to be fallacious here, but this is more or less a textbook example of a false dichotomy. It is fully possible to be varied and have good art, and it is also very possible to be consistently horrible.You could argue that it's easier to use consistency as a basis for making good art (I suppose just until you get really good at one specific style), but that isn't even necessarily true. I could go even further to say that h0rs3 has shown that he is fully capable of making good straight animations too (if you even want to call homosexuality and heterosexuality "variation," in terms of art at any rate) but I think I've said enough here.

"I have a valid, backed up point that people can associate to." People tend to associate WITH things they agree with, not with things that are necessarily true. ("To," according to Webster's, isn't even correct in that context. Personally, I don't care, but apparently you do.)

"More grammar: that semi-colon needs to be outside the quote, because I never used a semi-colon after focus." Upon research, you are actually correct. Congratulations. If this were a newspaper article or a research paper, I would care. But it's an internet comment, so I don't.

"Is he not allowed to deny anything?" He can do whatever he wants, and, to be fair, it's not as if he's short of people trying to commission him, so if he's gay he has a lot of freedom to refuse to animate straight porn. But he's already made straight porn, so that's not really a valid point.

"I hate having to talk to people that don't think like me, and you're about as close as they get so far." The last half of that sentence made practically no sense at all.

Hyper_Beam said:
Before I say anything else, I'd like to point out that you've raised only 5 real arguments, 2 of which were just you bitching about grammar. When literally 40% of the content of your rebuttal is complaining about the subtleties of language, it's pretty easy to realize that your methodology could use some work.

"...because otherwise we would not need to 'take what we can get'." Not talking to you, not relevant.

"Grammatical error: you don't need the 1st comma; 'boy' is not separate information that can be removed." Still a full sentence without the word "boy." I also wouldn't care even if that actually were wrong.

"I take offense. Who wouldn't?" Well, I apologize.

"I like creating arguments and analysing things, OK?" k.

"Think about it. if you have one guy with lots of varied stuff, but it's all crap, and one guy that has a focus (therefore less variety), but his stuff is good, who do you pick?" I don't know if you were trying to be fallacious here, but this is more or less a textbook example of a false dichotomy. It is fully possible to be varied and have good art, and it is also very possible to be consistently horrible.You could argue that it's easier to use consistency as a basis for making good art (I suppose just until you get really good at one specific style), but that isn't even necessarily true. I could go even further to say that h0rs3 has shown that he is fully capable of making good straight animations too (if you even want to call homosexuality and heterosexuality "variation," in terms of art at any rate) but I think I've said enough here.

"I have a valid, backed up point that people can associate to." People tend to associate WITH things they agree with, not with things that are necessarily true. ("To," according to Webster's, isn't even correct in that context. Personally, I don't care, but apparently you do.)

"More grammar: that semi-colon needs to be outside the quote, because I never used a semi-colon after focus." Upon research, you are actually correct. Congratulations. If this were a newspaper article or a research paper, I would care. But it's an internet comment, so I don't.

"Is he not allowed to deny anything?" He can do whatever he wants, and, to be fair, it's not as if he's short of people trying to commission him, so if he's gay he has a lot of freedom to refuse to animate straight porn. But he's already made straight porn, so that's not really a valid point.

"I hate having to talk to people that don't think like me, and you're about as close as they get so far." The last half of that sentence made practically no sense at all.

Before I carry on this, well, slightly pitiful series of arguments against arguments, 3 things.
First, I am sorry to just about everyone looking at the comments for having to deal with this. I hope this isn't a regular occurrence. Especially not for me.
Secondly, So what if I pick out the grammar? They're almost arguments, and I 'like' picking out the grammar, as it's easier and I know a bit more and I make myself look less of a berk with grammar than actual points.
Thirdly, Why is my brain making me do this? I get part way through, and I just explode with confusion, yet carry on painfully. Why?
"Not talking to you, not relevant." Found some offense in the comment, and despite it not being directed to me, I still wanted to put it right.
The next two, I thank for your compliance.
" I don't know if you were trying to be fallacious here, but this is more or less a textbook example of a false dichotomy. It is..." After research, I can now answer. There are other options, but it was to make a point between focusing on variety or consistency. I did not want to include the other options, as it would blur my argument.
"People tend to associate WITH things they agree with, not with things that are necessarily true." I understood this when I wrote that, and hoped that others would find that they agree with it.
""To," according to Webster's, isn't even correct in that context." You're gonna have to explain this... actually, no you don't, as I've worked it out and I'm going to die of confusion if you do. I now understand that it is 'with' I need to use. Thank you.
"Personally, I don't care, but apparently you do." I refer you to the top of this comment.
"If this were a newspaper article or a research paper, I would care. But it's an internet comment, so I don't." Yes, but what if you do this all the time? That would be a problem. I have helped to correct that, so hopefully the same mistake won't be made.
"...He has a lot of freedom to refuse to animate straight porn. But he's already made straight porn, so that's not really a valid point." Yes, but not much. Maybe the ideas within the straight commissions were not of his taste, and as I said, "with or without sexuality in question, denies these." I'm afraid my point is valid, Mr Bond.
"The last half of that sentence made practically no sense at all." Exactly. I hate this. I want to be understood.

Roanth said:

Before I carry on this, well, slightly pitiful series of arguments against arguments, 3 things.
First, I am sorry to just about everyone looking at the comments for having to deal with this. I hope this isn't a regular occurrence. Especially not for me.
Secondly, So what if I pick out the grammar? They're almost arguments, and I 'like' picking out the grammar, as it's easier and I know a bit more and I make myself look less of a berk with grammar than actual points.
Thirdly, Why is my brain making me do this? I get part way through, and I just explode with confusion, yet carry on painfully. Why?
"Not talking to you, not relevant." Found some offense in the comment, and despite it not being directed to me, I still wanted to put it right.
The next two, I thank for your compliance.
" I don't know if you were trying to be fallacious here, but this is more or less a textbook example of a false dichotomy. It is..." After research, I can now answer. There are other options, but it was to make a point between focusing on variety or consistency. I did not want to include the other options, as it would blur my argument.
"People tend to associate WITH things they agree with, not with things that are necessarily true." I understood this when I wrote that, and hoped that others would find that they agree with it.
""To," according to Webster's, isn't even correct in that context." You're gonna have to explain this... actually, no you don't, as I've worked it out and I'm going to die of confusion if you do. I now understand that it is 'with' I need to use. Thank you.
"Personally, I don't care, but apparently you do." I refer you to the top of this comment.
"If this were a newspaper article or a research paper, I would care. But it's an internet comment, so I don't." Yes, but what if you do this all the time? That would be a problem. I have helped to correct that, so hopefully the same mistake won't be made.
"...He has a lot of freedom to refuse to animate straight porn. But he's already made straight porn, so that's not really a valid point." Yes, but not much. Maybe the ideas within the straight commissions were not of his taste, and as I said, "with or without sexuality in question, denies these." I'm afraid my point is valid, Mr Bond.
"The last half of that sentence made practically no sense at all." Exactly. I hate this. I want to be understood.

There isn't really much for me to say in response to this. You weren't even expressly wrong about anything, but that's pretty easy to accomplish when you don't raise a single argument. It also seems that you're not a fan of logic, because you mentioned being confused several times there and I didn't do anything other than try to logically examine what you said. In cases where I pointed out fallacy, you said you 'simplified' your argument to avoid confusion (well, in your case, I suppose this means avoiding logic).

If you can't understand deductive reasoning on a simple level, there is really no point to this conversation.

Hyper_Beam said:
There isn't really much for me to say in response to this. You weren't even expressly wrong about anything, but that's pretty easy to accomplish when you don't raise a single argument. It also seems that you're not a fan of logic, because you mentioned being confused several times there and I didn't do anything other than try to logically examine what you said. In cases where I pointed out fallacy, you said you 'simplified' your argument to avoid confusion (well, in your case, I suppose this means avoiding logic).

If you can't understand deductive reasoning on a simple level, there is really no point to this conversation.

Logic is fine with me, I don't understand where that came from.
"That's pretty easy when you don't raise a single argument." I have raised arguments. I don't see where you got this from either; are arguments opinionated?
Apart from that, I got nothing. Sorry about this.

Stop arguing and take it somewhere else

Rainbow_Dash said:
Stop arguing and take it somewhere else

2L84me

Rainbow_Dash said:
Stop arguing and take it somewhere else

Sorry. I did apologize after the 1st reply to him, though...

whos pants are those?

Waffleking said:
Peter picked a peck of Pickled peckers

Did you just...

Did Anyone notice the "That Fox Taste Good..." Look that the dragon gave... Right Before pulling out his knot...

wow. this is absolutely incredible. he's drastically improved in his animations. this...this is phenomenal! i love it!! keep up the amazing work!! :3

Seriously, this deserves to receive the "Best sex animation of all time" award, this is the best sex animation I have ever, ever seen in my entire life.

this is very hot OwO <3

OH MY FURRY LORD. <3 this was beautiful.

Fox takin cock like a fox!

Dragon Saliva, apparently it's a miracle lube as a single lick can make you go instantly balls deep on someone

9/10 because I'm not fond of the foot licking otherwise amazing :P

I like turtles

I could feel that :3

I have never seen animation this realistic and fluid, amazing work!

Isn't that fox missing something?...The horsecock he's usually sporting (and he dose it very well might I add)

horse u horny bitch love it

i want to be the orange

Amazing!!

Pawjobs!!!!!!!"""

Add a footjob and this will be AWESOME.

Can we have the foot sniffing/licking extended for a whole animation? owo

(referring to the huge argument comments)

dude. Free dicks. who cares?

What is it with Furries and all things related to raves ?

This is the best comic i have seen ever
Make further comics like this
Thanks

Can also be found as a video, for example here: http://foobarvids.theyiffgallery.com/animation-tanith-and-demonancer-hi-res-by-h0rs3_v1482

i think the love tag should be in this. there is no denying that they love each other at the end. its TOO CUTE!!!

This is really good

Anyone else notice the dildo in the drawer?

This is fucking beautiful and adorable.

not bad at all

really nice

elad said:
Why do people get turned on by neon colored genitalia? I get it's just different tastes but I mean, there is literally no possible natural equivalent. His cock looks like a pickle. I find it quite a dramatic turn-off. :<

I TURNED MYSELF INTO A PICKLE, MORTY
I'M PICKLE DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICK!!!

i love the tail wag

I love his cute little green dick! So cute!