Oklahoma City may have the largest bestiality case in history — and without question the most disgusting. Diane Sue Whalen 54, and Donald Roy Seigfried, 55, are accused of training their dogs to have sex with Whalen and other women. Whalen was apparently busted by her own son who found 150 tapes of her performing sex acts with the dogs — including a mixed breed and labrador Lucky and Buddy and a blue heeler named Merlin owned by Seigfried. Seigfried allegedly filmed the events.
Whalen and Seigfried are charged with crimes against nature.
Remarkably, Seigfried is trying to get his dog back. The dogs have been accepted in a no-kill pet sanctuary. Click here.
The use of this type of law in an animal-human crime remains rare. It is punishable by 10 years in prison:
§21-886 Crime Against Nature-Penalty
Every person who is guilty of the detestable and abominable crime against nature, committed with mankind or with a beast, is punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding ten (10) years.
§21-887 Crime against nature, what penetration necessary.
Any sexual penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the crime against nature.
What is interesting is that the Oklahoma law’s history indicates that it was primarily designed to criminalize homosexuality rather than bestiality. Click here. In the wake of Lawrence v. Texas, it appears to be reverting back to a true bestiality focus.
For the full story, click here.
Truly bizar and freaky! Iew!
“Lucky” and “Buddy.” Eeeesh…
O.K., I see Seigfried is involved; but what the Hell is he doing with a woman, and where the Hell was Roy??!!
Give her a break.
She must be “dog” tired.
Course, this case does give new meaning to the phrase, “let sleeping dogs lie“.
One thing is certain.
THAT dog won’t hunt.
Least not anymore.
Is this really illegal under Lawrence, what she does in her own bedroom…. I don’t agree with it and find it more than just disgusting, but still …. I don’t see how if she was not coerced and if she did this because she wanted to…..as abhorrent as that thought is… who is the victim here…unless it was cruelty to animals, and I don’t think I will go there…
sogmanh
1, July 23, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Is this really illegal under Lawrence
I’m guessing bestiality is pretty much illegal regardless of jurisdiction.
Cept of course maybe some of the more rural parts of Alabama and possibly northern Idaho.
Of course, we probably shouldn’t be too hard on her.
All she did was give the dog a bone.
No, the dog gave her a “bone of his own!” Ohhhh!
Any serious responses welcomed. I am looking for a completed study including physchanalytical data the suggest avenues of correction in the individuals infatuated.
What a meaningless charge… As if she has tortured the animals… The dogs should be cursing to the ones who took them to the sanctuary.
“”Sure it is so humiliating and a great disgrace for a human to have sex with animals.”"
But if there is a crime, it here is to have sex with animals and not a crime againts nature.
More important, there are thousands of web sites on bestiality and thousands of film productions on bestiality. Who touches those people ?! So where is the justice ?!
This is just creepy
I’m disappointed that the comments above giggle over the animal cruelty aspects of this crime.
In certain acts, the physical cruelty is obvious. In certain other acts in which the animal is induced to ejaculate, the perp could argue that the animal surely “enjoyed” it — just as a perp who fellates a child or a disabled person incapable of giving knowing consent “enjoyed” it.
There can be no consent where there can be no refusal; and no sane lawyer is going to march into court and declare that a dog (or whatever) is capable of free and informed consent.
But is consent relevant? Does an animal have a “right” not to be abused? Seems to me most of our animal cruelty jurisprudence rests on the asserted rights of the human society not to be offended by acts of egregious cruelty, not on the “right” of an animal not to be subjected to same.
Pain, enjoyment, and consent aside, there are disease issues to be considered, some of which may rise to the level of genuine public health threats. HIV / AIDS appears to have crossed to humans after arising in other primates; anthrax can easily be passed from animals to humans; and so on.
Didn’t “crime against nature” statutes fail for vagueness about thirty years ago? Charge them with animal cruelty as a backup in case the “against nature” charges fail to withstand appellate scrutiny; re-write the statute to be specific; and raise the penalties for all animal cruelty offenses at the same time.
What’s your position on the porn, Mr. Turley? Could/should it be confiscated whenever found as evidence of a crime?
Mine was not a giggling. I just told what i thought & know and am still behind what i said above; to be fair, “this” event has nothing to do with crime against nature or cruelty against dogs.
Nonetheless it is still so disgracing for a human even to think of committing it .
and perversion as well .
Well, not animal cruelty by the looks of it.
http://www.3animalsex.com/page.php?v=5099965198
I have no ideal why this couple would be in trouble for bestiality when its acceptable for a white woman to have sex with a black man. If that isn’t bestiality then I don’t know what is.
semorgan is a confused creepy idiot
THis man is a deviant idiot looser to ask her wife to do such things with a dog. As for the other comment, BLACK people are HUMAN BEING MEN OR WOMEN. Racism shouldn’t exist. White men should stop being worry to loose their women because of the black men cause it will never happen.
This is crap. Where is the animal abuse. Giving a dog a hummer is not abuse. Michael Vick is a good example of abuse. This should be a fine for indecency and left at that. Depending on the sex acts involved I believe the dog has a choice. You cant get a male dog to perform unless he wants to. Sick but a waste of tax payer money if prison in involved.
omg.
i am…
ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
that link T.T
Nothing wrong with watching it in my opinion, but actually doing it is way to sick.
Brings a whole new meaning to ” lifes a bitch and then you marry one ” !!!!!
This is just ridiculous. If the question was the independence of dogs and their right to self determination then this would be an invitation to judge. The truth is that dogs are trained to do all sorts of things some of which cause harm and death. Do dogs have the choice of whether or not to become explosives sniffers?
Dogs have a natural desire to have sex just as humans do. If they are otherwise cared for I think it is perfectly acceptable for humans to have sex with them. There is no way, under the right circumstances that the dogs don’t enjoy it.
Many people enjoy sex with dogs. This is something gradually becoming more evident and accepted.
This is a non-issue
What?
Accepted by whom?
Certainly not the psychological professions.
From wiki: “Zoophilia may also be covered to some degree by other (non-science) fields such as ethics, philosophy, law, animal rights and animal welfare. It may also be touched upon by sociology which looks both at zoosadism in examining patterns and issues related to sexual abuse and at non-sexual zoophilia in examining the role of animals as emotional support and companionship in human lives, and may fall within the scope of psychiatry if it becomes necessary to consider its significance in a clinical context, or criminology as in most countries it is a crime, and it can be a precursor of other sexual crimes.
The established view in the field of psychology is that zoophilia is a mental disorder. DSM-III-R (APA, 1987) stated that sexual contact with animals is almost never a clinically significant problem by itself. It may reflect childhood experimentation or lack of other avenues of sexual expression. Exclusive desire for animals rather than humans is considered a rare paraphilia, and sufferers often have other paraphilias with which they present. Zoophiles will not usually seek help for their condition, and so do not come to the attention of psychiatrists for zoophilia itself. It was placed in the classification “paraphilias not otherwise specified.” in the DSM-III and IIII. The World Health Organization takes the same position, listing a sexual preference for animals in its ICD-10 as “other disorder of sexual preference”.
The DSM-IV (TR) (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) requires that the individual does not receive the diagnosis of zoophilia, as with most other paraphilias, unless it is accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the individual.”
Semorgan may your wife get it doggystyle by a black dog. That my friend wouldnt be beastiality……that would be funny
Do you mind if I quote a couple of your posts as long as I provide credit and sources back to your blog? My blog is in the exact same area of interest as yours and my visitors would genuinely benefit from some of the information you present here. Please let me know if this alright with you. Thank you!Thanks for your hard work!This was my google
Hi would you mind letting me know which webhost you’re utilizing? I’ve loaded your blog in 3 completely different internet browsers and I must say this blog loads a lot quicker then most. Can you suggest a good internet hosting provider at a honest price? Many thanks, I appreciate it!Thanks for your hard work!This was my google
Admiring the persistence you put into your site and in depth information you present. It’s good to come across a blog every once in a while that isn’t the same unwanted rehashed material. Wonderful read! I’ve saved your site and I’m adding your RSS feeds to my Google account.Thanks for your hard work!This is my google
Face it. Pornography is a very lucrative business–people want more, so people make more. Except for child pornography, which is clearly bad in my opinion, I see nothing wrong with filming yourself being buggered by a ravenous canine. Lawmakers are always making laws; that’s what they do…and they think the solution to everything is a new law. If they find out that a drought is causing people to run low on water, they try and fix the problem by making a new law against excessive lawn watering…then fairly soon a disgruntled son turns in his father for excessive lawn watering and voila, he sees his dad go to prison for doing a chore. Everybody bounces on their toes, and claps their hands with smiley faces, as they watch and celebrate as they drag another evil criminal away to get his due justice for breaking this new law.
So they finally get to push through a law against bestiality in FL. Now they are closer to that ‘much needed’ law in OK as well…whew! What a feat, we’re getting closer…what else will be riding on this law anyway? Taking away rights to privacy and other things such as our guns and our freedom seems to be the typical agenda nowadays. After all, if you don’t have anything to hide, what would you be worried about if a strange expressionless man with dark shades and a little piggy tail thingy behind his ear went walking around your house while you were watching TV after dinner? It’s all okay, never mind him–he’s harmless, he’s there to protect you so long as you are living the straight and narrow…better hide those empty beer cans, there’s too many in view…
It seems stupid to me to be incarcerated for doing something on your own time, behind your own walls and doors, for your own gratification, so long as nobody is getting forced to do things they don’t want to do. All that this case does is make it easier to send somebody to jail for something totally different, but still taking place on their own property, and under similar conditions. “Never let a good crisis go to waste” is the motto…hurry and excrete a steaming new law quickly while the subject is still fresh so people will plug their noses and still vote for it.
What gives one person the right to impose their beliefs and moral standards upon another person? What one person thinks is right or wrong, or sick and twisted has little to do with how other people feel and believe. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and moral standards so long as they do not infringe upon other people… AND how is it a cause for celebration to use criminal justice to punish people, (US) for conducting personal acts that have nothing to do with anyone else? A crime against nature…pffft. They won’t hardly even describe the act since humans are supposed to be so high and mighty, that to have relations with a beast would bring the very status of our whole race down! Lawyers will have fun with the ambiguity of that ‘crime’ for sure!
As for the prosecutors, they were doing what any other officers of the law would do, scratching their heads until they could come up with some reason to arrest these ‘foul’ people; for they must be breaking some sort of law–it clearly goes against what society would deem as being acceptable!
All animals, other than humans, are treated the same as if they were a bicycle; animals are property. If you own them, you can kill them, eat them, force them to provide you with milk, breed them till they drop dead and then eat them along with all their progeny too–need I go on? But to allow an animal to have sex with you is punishable by up to ten years in the pen?! Something’s wrong here. What about the guy in CA. a number of years back who got two years in the pen for spreading molasses on himself, then rolling in oats and allowing horses to lick him clean while standing naked in somebody’s pasture?–he got charged with cruelty to animals for that?! Get over it people…I don’t have any right to tell you where you can park your penis if it is done behind closed doors. You or I may not condone those same acts that these individuals did, but to infringe on their right to privacy et.al., is to open up a whole arena that will surely result in further infringements upon everyone else’s rights as well.
Derrik, you contradicted yourself in the same paragraph. Having horses lick a man in a field is not “done behind closed doors,” by definition.
Has anyone investigated, to see whether the wife in this case was the victim? Was the bestiality involved truly voluntary on her part, or did her husband pressure her?
First, Bette, i believe derrik was making the point of how is that animal cruelty? Dont read too far into that sentence just to find a contradiction and justify your objections. I, very much, agree with Derrik 100%. Now if a dog willingly mounts a woman and inserts inside of her and ejaculates…i don’t see how you can call that “animal abuse” other than your own moral objections. What if i morally object to you having an abortion, same-sex partner, sex before marriage, damaging your liver, or lung…do i have the right to punish you for it or tell you that you cant do it simply because i believe it is wrong, even if its not hurting anyone else or infringing upon anyone elses freedoms or rights. Now people want to consistently point out animal cruelty and animal rights on this page, but how is keeping animals like cows, chickens, horses, goats, and sheep in cages, or making dogs be bomb sniffers, or butchering the animals we eat any less cruel. Is it becuase it is a necessity that we can disregard an animals “rights!” Now belive me, i’m no animal lover by any means or a tree hugger. An animals an animal and nothing more. I’m simply pointing out the obvious double standard! I’m proud to be an American, but we have a long way to go when it comes to understanding diversity and tolerance! And believe me, i bet more people do it, have done it or have thought about doing it than the numbers show! People are just afraid to speak out. And i dont blame them when they have to be subjected to this kind of intolerance. And when i say that, believe me, it goes way beyond bestiality! Our puritanical foundation has become a deterent in our growth, yet we have the audacity to call this a FREE COUNTRY!!
Well said and aptly put manwhobearsnoname!
Them folk er either speechless, or ya done runn’dem’oft!
Bestiality? Has anyone looked at this woman?
What I want to know is what would Rick ‘Frothy Mix’ Santorum say about this?
I could write an essay on why oppressing the zoosexual is wrong or I can make it simple. Simply put Jesus would not do to the zoo what humans do to the zoo judging himself. Why do humans want to die in Gods light missing eternal joy?
The goodie 2shoes law makers are trouble makers. The law makers have taken over people lives and decisions and in most cases the only law broken is the law itself. People just want to left alone and live their lives in peace as long as it doesn’t harm others. My sex life is my life, weather with animals or consenting adults. It’s nobody’s business but mine. Bestiality, homosexuality, sodomy, prostitution, sex before marriage, swinger clubs is nobody’s business but mine. Do you law makers understand? IT’S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Judge your own sex life , not mine. I have a natural right to live my life as i see fit; CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT. Just leave me alone. I’m not on this earth to have you as my boss. You are not my boss and never will be no matter how many laws you pass You law makers are disgusting.I only have one shot at life and I want to live it, so just get the hell out of my life and stay out. OR AM i ASKING TO MUCH?
Humans because they die are in body are busted by God because they die. Condemn another human, and in Gods eyes bust your soul. The fool tries to take the place of Gods light arresting anyone.
Take the name zoosexuality or bestiality away, and what remains is a form of sex on a planet of sex. Humans should realize this, and not look like an idiot being against a form of sex acting like Genghis Khan warmongers wanting to burn down a zoosexual village.
Human animals have analyzed a simple activity to death. The humans against the zoosexual, bestialist don’t keep this verse, and hence favor a militaristic way of doing things. K, J, V, Philippians 2:3;Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Do this, and Humans will judge themselves being sure they are right with whoever. That allows Jesus in so whoever can be like Jesus is. The humans arresting the zoosexual bestialist is acting like the highminded, egotistical, condemning, accusing devil who thinks he is better than anyone. That is the defiled, devious, abominable, perverted, blaspheming spirit that is against the zoosexual, etc.
Bartlebee I can tell by your ignorance, that you have never spent time in northern Idaho nor Alabama, yet still have a distorted vision or dream of what you want to happen there.
BARTLEBEE you can leave Alabama and Idaho out of your stupid comment. This happens in the Western States way to much. I have no ideal why people treat a dog in this manner but I will tell you they will be judged at death. Only in Death is the Fear of God Truly Realized.