Yes, all of those conflicts, or most anyway, are about closeness, not sex. But that doesn't refute the role of a partner, any partner, in undermining that closeness. This is natural, and unavoidable. And in itself, not wrong. But still brings headaches, justified and unjustified, to parents.

There is a clear way in which the genetic interest of parent and child are different.

The parent does best when the child follows a K strategy. The child, though, depending on circumstances, may do better on a r strategy, particularly so, early in their fertile span. The difference is also likely to be greater in girls than boys, both because of the longer male fertile span and because the r strategy is less losing to boy's parents than girl's parents.

This is so because the parental investment on the child cannot be withdrawn anymore. It is done. The child's actions will determine the returns from there on. But the child has not yet invested anything, and will only start investing as they take reproductive decisions.

So, to a parent, a K strategy will nearly always be superior because it will best assure that the investment will not be a cost without profit. A r strategy is less likely to assure this. And this is more pronounced for girls. With their shorter fertile spans and their larger personal investment per child.

But as the child has not yet invested anything, both the K and r strategies will be evaluated from a zero investment point. And then the child will decide. And may decide for the lower initial cost of a r strategy.

That means, for a boy, to decide between the honor roll girls, the sports scholarship girls or the more picket fence type girls, for a K strategy; or the school sluts, drug takers, or petty criminals, for a r strategy. (Exaggerating stereotypes to get across my point) And for a girl, to decide between the nerdy types on a path to engineering and law, or again the sports scholarship types, for a K strategy; or the school's vandals, dealers, joy riders and general rule breakers for a r strategy.

The parent **clearly** prefers the former. Even more strongly so the parents of daughters.

The child does not. Not automatically. And not from lack of experience. It may be a rational evaluation to prefer the "loser" partner or partners.
(say, "I'm pretty enough to get a partner, but not so pretty I can compete for the best ones; smart enough to pass school, but not so smart I can go to a top college; rich enough I won't starve, but not so rich I can get a head start right away..." then maybe the r strategy assures her a reproductive future while she's healthy, which she would have to postpone if she went for a K strategy for which she isn't sure enough she will succeed in time to reproduce)

Ultimately yes, both want another generation. But the child wants to gauge their optimal level of investment; while for the parent, for whom the investment is already expended, wants to maximize the child's level of investment. That is the difference.



And finally... whether it has the permanence of marriage or the impermanence of the free-for-all model, still a partner, any partner, makes you drift away from parents. Again, it's natural. I'd say it's not even always conscious. Just happens.