What? Are you still reading this? It must be because your ancestors had green teeth, and now you think you might know why. You figure you might be a relative of this unicorn son, am I right? You think maybe you know why granpa preferred the leaves of his veggies, to the veggies themselves? Or maybe you think you now know why you were kept behind an electrified wire fence all through your younger years?
Or it might be because you have a small bump on the head, and you've had it for all your life (it's not a temporary condition, as is most often the case), and it's not perfectly aligned with your nose and you figure it might be a residual horn, much like your coccyx is all that remains of a prehensile tail your monkey ancestors had?
Well, whatever the reason, thanks to you, I feel the need to further define this peculiar young boy. I say boy, but know that he was a boy for only a brief part of his life. What I mean to say is that he wasn't a boy all of his life. He lived beyond the age of thirteen. And sufficiently so that we can state that he was older for a longer period of time than the years he spent as a young boy.
If we did the math, we'd find that he lived beyond age 26. It's pretty simple maths, but I still don't want to bore you with that. Partly because those are just details, and partly because mathematics trigger frowns from a lot of people.
But to further explain my logics, let me add that if we're even talking about him having relatives in our current lifetime, it means he had to pass seed. Can't have it otherwise. In those time, they called it "raising a family". In other words, he had to marry and have children. Well, at least one child. With or without marriage. But possibly at the risk of being burned alive for fornicating.
Pfff. This story is getting pretty complicated.
A daredevil like him, I'm sure he risked it sometimes. Sex outside of marriage, I mean. But was a child born of these premature unions? Who is to say? Not me. It's not my purpose. And there's barely enough archaeological evidence to even suggest this boy/man ever existed. The possibility of extramarital relations just can't be proven, or even rebuffed.
Come to think of it, though, a horn in the middle of the forehead somewhat makes the love-making' harder. Setting aside the potential usefulness of a frontal horn during, err, lingual foreplay, we can easily image the physical limitations and health hazards the horn would carry.
Our boy could have poked his partner's eyes out with a kiss. Not to mention the horn getting all tangled up in her hair, which, as you know, was kept long and mostly unclean during those harsh times.
Me, I picture them somewhat like braids. To the touch, at least. I'm talking about the ladies' hair during the Middle Ages, for those who weren't paying attention. The reason they don't look like braids on the paintings is that they cleaned it up before the painter came in with his brushes. Not unlike us combing our hair and dressing up for the photographer.
But back to the love-making. Sex sells, remember? I'm trying to sell you this story about this peculiar man, who lived long ago, and trying to make you care for this guy. I don't really know why. Hell, maybe he was a douche and is utterly unworthy of our attentions. Still, we don't know that. And he had pure blood on his side, so I'm pretty sure he was at least moderately good, and therefore, worth knowing.
I think it is rather safe to assume that our boy did it doggy-style. I mean, he was part horse, remember? And by that, I don't mean to suggest he was very well-endowed, mind you. I suppose if he had been, we'd know. If his pee-pee had been of animalistic proportions, I dare suppose someone back then would have deemed it fit to write about it so we, the people of the future, would know. A historian, or some monk, maybe? Someone who could write. I'm sure there were a few before Newton and DaVinci came along.
What I'm getting at is that being horse-like in some aspect of his self meant that he would find it difficult to adopt the Church-sponsored missionary position. He most likely passed his seeds on his knees, while his partner was down on all four. And you can write it down: I'm the one who said it and I stand by my logic. I have no fear of winning any argument about that.
And so, he had at least one child, and that child might be one of your forefathers. That, we can conclude right now.