Traditional Texas Mother Suspected of Having Sex with 12-yr-old

Traditional American values were exhibited once again this week in Pasadena, TX – the town that boasts of “…a determination to succeed and built a community of strong families.”

Brandi Michelle Fuller, a 30-yr-old single mother and resident of Pasadena, was arrested on June 2 after avoiding police for a few days (according to a video report from a hot reporter named Nefertiti Jaquez) when questions were raised about an inappropriate sexual relationship.

Brandi Fuller
Texan traditional mom and rapist

A friend of Ms. Fuller’s contacted the police after she discovered that her son had been having sex with Ms. Fuller. The unidentified friend is concerned that her son, now 14-yrs-old, may be the father of Ms. Fuller’s 10-month old baby. That child is the youngest of Ms. Fuller’s six children.

The sexual relationship was reported to have begun in 2009, when the boy was 12 years old.

Ms. Fuller claims that the boy forced himself on her. She says that she was sleeping soundly – perhaps dreaming about KFC and her next trip to Target – when she was aroused from her slumber by a twelve-year-old boy “rubbing on her.”

What was her response to being awoken by the horny humping of her friend’s preteen son? She allegedly fucked him.  She “didn’t want to make a big scene” and wake anyone else up. It was just easier to fuck the kid.

Paternity testing will commence to determine who is the father of Ms. Fuller’s child, but in the meantime, we are all reminded of the “meaning of marriage as portrayed in the New Testament” that inspired the passage of a constitutional amendment in Texas that banned recognition of same-sex marriage or any second class designation in the state.

In 2005, Texas voters passed the anti-gay amendment with a 76% majority in favor of the measure.

Following the election, conservative chief counsel for the Liberty Legal Institute Kelly Shackelford, said “Texans from every race and background spoke loudly that they want marriage to be between one man and one woman. They believe that children deserve mom and dad, and they don’t want that tinkered with.”

Texans have gone to great lengths to demonize and marginalize the LGBT families and at the same time are not compelled to take any actions to restrict heterosexual women like Brandi Fuller from having as many children as she wants, whether she is married or not, and with anyone she wants – although they would prefer she chose an adult when exercising her New Testament approved right to fornicate.

The New Testament does authorize random and frequent fornication, right? It must, or Texans would have amended their constitution to defend marriage from attacks by people like Brandi Fuller.

Wouldn’t they?

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #statutoryrape #texas #traditionalmarriage stories and more


  • JordanMeehan

    Awww I just love good Christian family values!

  • Cam


    1. Those poor children being raised by that waste case.

    2. Facial Tattoos? Really?

    3. Queerty left out the part where, she said that she only had sex with him because she didn’t want to make a big scene…….”front of her son who slept on the floor of the railor nearby” (Oh….God….it just doesn’t get trashier than that)

    4. THESE are the types of people that vote against our rights because the Bible Says so.

    5. and lastly….”Nefertiti Jaquez” Best News reporter name ever.

  • Kaitlyn

    @Cam: I agree that this woman is a waste. 30 years old and she has 6 kids?! I’m curious as to the ages of her other children. Also, Nefertiti usedto work here in Philly. She was a good reporter and quite attractive as well. I agree it’s a great news name.

  • dvlaries

    Meanwhile, an allegedly just God is striking some good woman with cervical cancer.
    Explain that to me, you right-wingers, will ya…?

  • Adrian Acosta

    her fate could have been avoided if she had a sassy gay friend.

    “WHAT WHAT WHAT ARE YOU DOING?” Sleeping with you 12 year old son!

    “She’s a stupid bitch”

  • Josh T

    This article while pointing out obvious virtues, lol, bundles up all the baggage that gets in the way of the gay marriage and gay rights core issues. The core of the problem with gay marriage is that even if gays were given every single right that a married couple has they(I am a homosexual btw) still want the word MARRIAGE. This is the sticking point to religious nuts, and it seems also to gays. If gays truly just want the rights, then fight for the rights, it seems tho that gays want the word marriage included in this fight just to piss off religious people or show them that they got what they wanted, which is the American way I mean bitch about something you can’t have until you have it then bitch about something else. If gays don’t agree with certain peoples definitions of marriage then make up your own word for it, why is it so important for gays to be included in this definition? Isn’t life too short to be worried about fucking words? I mean I hope we all could stop caring about words like faggot, so why do we still care about the definition of marriage especially from close minded religious nuts? Before I get flammed by a buncha pro rights gays, save your breath, I honestly don’t give a crap about gay marriage since I think marriage for anyone is a waste of time. I do think however worrying about the definition of this waste of time as it pertains to gays wasting their time is pretty ridiculous.

  • gayathomemom

    @Josh T: Josh, the fact that you think marriage is a waste of time of course precludes you from understanding why having the right to MARRY my partner of 11 years is essential. A different name denotes a different status in society. How about the religious right adding HOLY to their marriages? And as someone with a child, I want him to know his parents as married, not civilly unioned. See, spell check came up on unioned. Can’t even use it as an adjective to describe what we have.

  • Zeus

    You know someone with the name Brandi is gonna be trash. Never fails.

  • Cam

    @Josh T: said…

    “The core of the problem with gay marriage is that even if gays were given every single right that a married couple has they(I am a homosexual btw) still want the word MARRIAGE. This is the sticking point to religious nuts, and it seems also to gays.”

    The issue is about equal rights. Yes, the back of the bus is just as comfortable, and I still get where I’m going, but it is still a civil rights issue.

    Two separate drinking fountains. You still get a drink of water, but it is still a civil rights issue.

  • patrick

    @Josh T: If it’s only a word, then why is it necessary to pass laws and amend constitutions and lead defamatory and misleading political campaigns that demonize a minority population to preserve the supposed sacred institution? Why are same-sex couples charged with upholding a moral thresh hold that opposite sex couples routinely breech, ignore and defile?

  • Adonis-of-Fire

    Hey don’t blame Texas, there’s poor pedophilic trailer park obese white trash all over the USA!!

  • Jeffree

    TraditionalTexasMom apparently had sex with her randy lil suitor 12 times, according to the linked article. Where I come from we call such ladies “yummy mummies” although I have no first-hand experience.

    @JoshT. Hello “Homosexual”! Were you responding to another article? You’re off topic and off base. You’re confusing marriage –which is a civil, state-sanctioned institution — and religious recognition of that marriage, which has nothing to do with taxes, pensions, inheritance, adoption, etc.

    May I suggest you read my book on “How to Be a Better Troll”? You’re clearly a stalled amateur.

  • robert in NYC

    You won’t find one tea party bagger scumbag or other republican condemning her, let alone a religious bigot! She gets a free pass because she’s “straight”, just like Palin’s daughter who was knocked up. The roman cult and all their religious right to lifers will praise this piece of white trash serial breeder for bringing an unwanted, unintended child into the world and ignore the fact she committed a sex crime with an underage boy. I bet you this moron votes republican too even though she’s probably on welfare.

  • Josh T

    So my point was if it’t the actual rights associated with legal marriage involved then it’s understandable to want and fight for those rights. However if its just recognition, which I don’t believe is required to be gay and proud fuck what other people think, this way to go about things seems silly. I just don’t see the need to be included in the definition of marriage. Who cares if we are or aren’t included in the terms that lesser minded individuals use? Why do you need their approval or their permission to be included in this? Didn’t Dan Savage create a definition for a word, Santorum? If it’s so fucking important to have a special word for a union between a same sex couple and you can’t have the word marriage, frankly because it’s a waste of time to fight over a word, then make up your own word or definition. This just seems like an utter and total waste of time over a DEFINITION of a word. Again if that is all that is at stake, as I stated if the fight is about rights or benefits then thats a much more admirable waste of time in the bigger waste of time which is life =).

  • Josh T

    Also to the above point of why it’s necessary to pass laws protecting the definition of marriage between a man and a woman. We hardly need to use this as an argument. I mean straight couples will be their own undoing. Marriage as it’s seen now is a joke. Moral values as they are interpereted by these same family first, religious types are just a sad attempt at holding on to views that society is quickly outgrowing. The more and more we see these kinds of laws or fights being brought up just proves that change is inevitable and some people just can’t deal with it. We are a progressive culture and no matter what progress is FORWARD thinking. These conservatives are fighting a losing battle it’s funny to watch their drastic attempts.

  • Nick

    @Josh T: I agree with Josh T. Gays fought for a very long time to be socially accepted and is still fighting that battle. We ARE progressive thinking culture and eventually things will change but just to fight over a term/vocabulary is not forward thinking. I would take civil union over no civil union any day. Once everything has been settled down I would argue over a term marriage.

  • Nat

    @Josh T:

    Right, let’s just establish now that gays can get married in some states. It may not be universal, it may not be federal, but the beachhead has been established. That’s the fight now.

    And it’s the same basic fight, regardless of your own personal myopia. There is no no happy compromise here. Do you think religious fanatics tolerate any recognition for gays? Most of them want to imprison us. Our job is to keep pushing, because they’ll keep pushing back.

    Get it? We drop the fight for marriage equality and we enter into an equally vicious fight for civil unions. We drop the fight for civil unions and we enter into a fight for partner benefits, hospital visitation rights, and inheritance rights.

    Also, if the word ‘marriage’ is so damn important to bigots, that should given an idea as to why it’s important that there’s civil marriage for gays. They want to differentiate our relationships, to lessen their importance, and you want to go along with that? Seriously?

  • Nat


    There is no such thing as ‘settling down’. Civil unions can be an important stepping down, but culture doesn’t evolve on its own. If you have to compromise with the words ‘civil union’, then your fight for marriage should begin the next day.

  • Josh T

    Yep all this chatter proves my point. All you want to fight over is the word marriage. You are being ridiculous. If you let a word have meaning or power it’s your fault. If you choose not to let it have meaning to you then it doesn’t. In the grand scheme of things it’s a word, letters connected together that mean something to someone. If your relationship with someone means something to you then other peoples thoughts, laws, words, actions, etc really shouldn’t get in the way of that. To sit here and cry because you can’t force another person, group, or society to accept you or your relationship seems silly. Why don’t you actually show society that what they think is only secondary to what you think? This argument is only ongoing because you keep mixing the need for the word marriage with the need for equal rights. The moment you seperate that you see that the fight for the word is silly.

  • TheRealAdam

    @Josh T: “The moment you seperate that you see that the fight for the word is silly.”

    Then you understand that the fight to keep the word to indicate just heterosexuals is just as silly. There are two ways to look at your argument.

    If it is indeed equality, then we should be able to have the same word as straight people, as well as the same rights. Making exceptions in terminology is not equality, that’s called “othering” something or someone else and treating their relationship differently.

    Ellen said it best: It’s like saying “You can sit there, you just can’t sit *there*”

    Equal rights is about equal recognition of our relationships and status in society, as well as having all of the rights and privileges that come with it, that are given to heterosexual relationships. If there is no difference in gay relationships from straight relationships, then they shouldn’t have to be called something different. Simple.

  • Cam

    To all the people saying “Marrige is just a word, or a term”.

    It isn’t. England has civil marriage for gays, all the laws are the same. People like Elton John came out and said that the U.S. gays were being stupid for fighting for equal access to marraige when civil marriage in England was just the same.

    Well then Elton tried to adopt a child, and the other country said that they only allow MARRIED couples to adopt. Well they didn’t recognize civil marriage.

    Separate but equal is NEVER equal and our Supreme court has said that it is unacceptable.

  • divkid

    what this woman did is WRONG. do NOT fiddle with kiddies. like EVER.

    okay disclaimer out of the way.

    i fail to see the relevance of this woman’s behaviour to the gay agenda, or what it tells us, other than the most cretinous general observation that her somewhat overly attested heterosexuality is somehow indicative that heterosexuality per se, is not the guarantor of all godly virtue and morality. did we ever really think it was? not even *they* believe that.

    c’mon queerty, was this just a bit of lulz at the fat trailer trash? (and yes i thought the line about kfc was funny i laughed (guiltily)).

    this woman’s crime stands for itself. or ought to. but she’s additionally being condemned here for being an overweight member of the underclass; probably on welfare; and of course the number of children she’s pushing out… aphid-like (possibly to DIFFERENT FATHERS!!).

    america is a classless society — now that’s lulz.

    off to hospital now to plug bleeding heart.

  • blaque

    Really???? another one??? Can’t these “hoes” find sum d!ck that’s over 21 years old… And i disagree with poster #2, having a facial tat’2 don’t have any thing to do with it.. This bitch got problems, that other chick in Flordia who had sex with those little boys didn’t have a facial tat’2, or that chick who took that little boy to Mexico. These bitches are sick, plain and simple.

  • Robert in NYC

    Josh T, civil unions, domestic partnerships will NEVER be the norm or the standard for gay couples. Both are NOT portable in most states. Marriage, whether you like the word or not, is the universal gold standard around the world. Civil unions for gays will NEVER be the norm either. There are only 3 states that have them, 5 states have same-sex marriage, 10 countries have same-sex marriage, plus Mexico City and Washington, DC. Marriage is important whether you want the word or not. Creating an alternate, inferior union for same-sex couples is nothing more than legal segregation to appease religious bigoted cults that think they own and have a monopoly on civil marriage. This is NOT a question of semantics. Words have consequences and implications.

    Cam, the UK’s civil partnership law for gays confers almost all of the rights of marriage without the name. They are NOT marriages in the legal sense of the word but are sometimes considered as such since they mimic much of what comprises marriage. The UK is also about to embark on a consultation for same-sex marriage for gay couples and civil partnerships for straight couples. The two unions will be interchangeable, an option, a choice of two forms of unions for both orientations.

  • Josh T

    A Robert in NYC. Gay marriage is going to happen regardless. This is the nature of things that are progressive. Worrying about, semantics and yes I do think thats what the issue is even tho some people can’t admit it, is pointless. More importantly people should be trying to get things like adoption rights as stated above before caring about the word marriage. Children in need of a home trumps being able to say im “married” any day of the week.

    @TheRealAdam , if your arguement is lets be exactly like straight people, or if straight people do it then why can’t we, or anything that implies we should mirror straight people well then I really have no words…The word is a word, rights are much different. Fighting over a word is fucking childish, we don’t need to be those bible belt pinheads. Grow up and be the bigger men gays get whats actually important.

  • Jane

    I agree with you, but, y’know, maybe you could be a little less classist in your assessment of these people. You can call people scum without talking about how fat and poor they are.

  • GreatGatsby2011

    I’m shocked at how many need a refresher course on US History, focusing on the African American Civil Rights Movement, secifically the period of Segregation. That period in history taught us that separate but equal is NOT equal, no matter how much we try and gussy it up. The menatality back then is exactly the same as the present mentality of the opposition. Thoughts like “You can go to school, just not MY school.” and “You can get married, just not to MY women.” have simply shifted to “You can have a lawfully binding contract creating kinship, but not MY lawfully binding contract creating kinship.” We’ve already learned that separate but equal doesn’t fly. Do we really have to go through this all over again just because because people are too busy day-dreaming to pay attention in 3rd period??

    Secondly, civil unions and domestic partnerships are not equivalent to marriage. There are several rights and protections not afforded to civil unions or even domestic partnerships that are enjoyed by married couples (like filing a joint federal tax return). Not only are they not recognized at all by the federal government but entities such employers or hospitals are not required to observe civil unions or domestic partnerships as they are marriage in some states. So settling for civil unions is not just refusing to fight over a “silly word”. It’s settling for an obviously inferior form of equality being offered to us as a “just shut up and be happy” deal.

    That’s why I support marriage equality for the LGBT community. I aced US History.

  • Markie-Mark

    @Josh T: Josh, If you think that the christo-fascists are going to allow us to have civil unions or domestic partnerships you are delusional. Most of the states that have constitutional amendments against marriage equality also forbid civil unions and domestic partnerships and any relationship between homosexuals that might approximate marriage. In fact there’s a movement in Illinois to get a referendum on the ballot to amend the Illinois constitution to ban civil unions. And don’t forget that Bill Clinton’s DoMA clearly states that the federal government will not recognize marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships. Your argument is specious.

  • Jeffree

    Did I miss a quote about civil unions in the article? Marriages should be civil. So should people. Enough said.

    Back to MissTexas: Her sister has uttered words good enough to write on a cake or needlepoint on a pillow: My sister has no problem getting a boyfriend. Why would she mess with a little kid?

    Indeed. It just don’t make no sense.

    I expect her to have her own reality show within a fornight. Title: “But he LOOKED 17” Category: MomCom (maternal comedy)
    — — — —
    Thanks to Divkid, aka my backup-fiancé, for trying to keep the actual topic alive. Brunch soon, ok? Let’s try Guam. It’s kinda out of the way so the paparazzi won’t stalk us again.

  • robert in NYC

    Nat, No. 18, exactly right! There are many religious bigots out there who don’t even want us to have civil unions or domestic partnerships either, let alone adopt children or teach in schools. If the term marriage weren’t so important, these bigots wouldn’t be up in arms over our demanding access to civil marriage. My personal preference is to follow the French example. Make all marriages civil, the only legal one in France, and let those who want religious solemnization have it, even though it wouldn’t be mandatory. State governments shouldn’t be issuing marriage licenses to couples who are having a religious ceremony in the first place.

  • Nat

    @Josh T:

    You’re either not actually understanding the comments made or you’re being deliberately dense.

    Now, we have gays on one side and religious extremists on another. We go to them and say ‘alright, we surrender. You can keep the word ‘marriage’, if we get civil unions.’

    Do you know what their response is?

    ‘F___ you sodomites! We allow you to exist, that’s enough!’

    In every instance where any right – however marginal – has been conferred to gays, there has been a small to sizable minority opposing it. Get it? They don’t like us, and they’re not going to compromise. If they had a way to roll back all of our rights, they would do it in a heartbeat.

    So – knowing that, why would we ever stop until we have marriage equality, along with the thousands of legal entitlements that go with it?

    The rights are inherent to the word ‘marriage’. No other.

  • GreatGatsby2011

    @Nat: Bravo!!

  • Cj M

    @robert in NYC: Yeah, that heifer votes. You bet. LOL. Bet she reads a lot, too!

Comments are closed.