specially concurring:
I concur in this decision, but because of my personal feelings I feel compelled to make this statement.
21 O.S.1981, § 886, a 1910 statute setting forth the “Crime Against Nature” does not offer any definition of what the crime constitutes. In 1982, in an effort to offer some substance to the aged statute, the Legislature added 21 O.S.1982 Supp., § 888, “Forcible Sodomy.” We are still left without a clear definition of what constitutes tiie offense of various forms of sodomy. As I stated in Golden v. State, 695 P.2d 6 (Okl.Cr.1985):
This writer has for many years been of the opinion that Section 886 is unconstitutionally vague in its face. See Canfield v. State, 506 P.2d 987, 989-990 (Okl.Cr.1973) (Brett, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part.) However, my colleagues on this Court and the Justices of the United States Supreme Court, in construing similar statutes, have disagreed. See Moore v. State, 501 P.2d 529 (Okl.Cr.1972) and Wainwright v. Stone, 414 U.S. 21, 94 S.Ct. 190, 38 L.Ed.2d 179 (1973). Therefore, as a matter of stare decisis, I am compelled to uphold the statute and deny this assignment of error. See Clayton v. State, 695 P.2d 3, 55 O.B.J. 1786 (Okl.Cr.1984).
See also Hicks v. State, 713 P.2d 18, 19 (Okl.Cr.1986).
The majority opinion correctly states: “The State introduced no evidence of penetration as to the charge of cunnilingus, but only for the charge of fellatio. Under 21 O.S.1981, § 887, the crime against nature requires ‘sexual penetration,’ however slight. No conviction for sodomy can stand absent proof of penetration.”
Because of the lack of definition in the “Crime Against Nature” statute, nothing is stated concerning “cunnilingus.” Also, because of our general understanding of the English language and depending on the dictionary definition of certain words, “cunnilingus” is impliedly included in Section 886. Then Section 887, adds the penetration requirement.
Webster’s Third International Dictionary, Unabridged, defines “cunnilingus” as “stimulation of the vulva or clitoris with the lips or tongue.” However, because of the antiquated nature of the Oklahoma Statutes an additional requirement is made to prove the act of “cunnilingus” which is penetration. It is tacitly admitted that the accused did everything that was alleged, but the State failed to have the prosecutrix to state that she felt the defendant’s tongue inside her. Hence, the conviction must fail. This appears to be a sad state *612of affairs. The woman is humiliated, embarrassed and degraded but because of the antiquated nature of the Oklahoma Statutes, her assailant is allowed to go unpunished for that offense.
Because of the stare decisis, I am compelled to concur in this decision. The solution to this dilemma lies squarely with the Legislature.