This study included 10 middle-class young adults (five men and five women), who still live with their parents (either married or divorced) in the city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The participants were aged between 26 and 36 years, single, had college degree, and worked for a living.

This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Department of Psychology of Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (Approval nº 010/2011).

To achieve the objective of this study, it was necessary to consider the hierarchical/egalitarian context as a privileged space of comprehension in this relational universe.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Initially, two pilot interviews were conducted to define the main topics that would be used in the actual interviews. The main topics discussed with the interviewees were about their impressions of living with their parents, the conversations that were bound to create tension, and their perceptions of the separation from the parent-children relationship. The interviews were audiotaped. The audio recordings were transcribed to compose the corpus for content analysis (Blanchet & Gotman, 2007) considering the objectives proposed.

The coexistence of parents and adult children in a domestic setting led us to consider the relevance of small details in everyday family life. Based on our understanding, these details exposed the adjustments in the relationship to enable its continuity. These adjustments corresponded to the construction, reconstruction, or to breaking the family rules that are responsible for organizing the life of family members and concurrently legitimizing personal and collective interests. Among these interests, we highlight the validation of the children's autonomy and re-signification of the relationship as significant aspects of coexistence at this time in the life of people of two different generations (Ramos, 2006). We see family coexistence as a territory that is bounded by rules, agreements, negotiations, new agreements, and renegotiations of a continuous transformation process in this relational context.

In contrast to these views, the interviewees Leticia and Fernanda defined their coexistence with their parents as a territory of tensions.

These statements highlight views of coexistence that oscillate from perspectives of support and assistance to tension and discomfort. We understand that both generations in question enjoy the privilege of interacting under the horizontal premises of interpersonal relationships, marked by the notions of equality and mutuality, according to Vieira and Rava (2012). However, as stated by Simmel (1912/2003), conflict is an integral part of living; there is no life without conflict. The statements made by Pedro, Igor, Leticia, and Fernanda support these views and lead to the understanding that there is a place for ambivalence.

Conflicts arise from stressful situations, but they seem to be neutralized by a certain adjustment or compliance to the rules and boundaries established since they are part of a non-hierarchical relationship. We may consider it as a coexistence characterized by small daily dilemmas with intensified or defused that comprise the relational environment that are part of a scenario that enables the continuity of the family status (Henriques et al., 2011).

One of the interviewees, Fernanda, used strategies, such as provocation, to undermine her father's control. Using her experience in this relationship she is aware that every time the situation repeats itself, it loses some of its original power; it is like "mining" an area of conflict; "If I'm watching television, he arrives, grabs the remote and switches the channel; he doesn't like anything that I watch. I sit on his chair; I think that this makes him infuriated, but he's doing this less now" (Fernanda, 34 years old).

We highlight the importance of the violating what was established as an intrinsic part of this continuous transformation process (Foucault, 1963/ 2009; Maciel Junior, 2012). By sitting on her father's chair, Fernanda incites him to regain control of the situation. By using an object that is closer to him (the remote control) the father assumes a dominant position, and the argument begins. Every time this situation repeats, it seems to undergo small changes that are maintained and help her to establish a sense of authority or control.

The significant aspects of this intergenerational coexistence are the validation of the children's autonomy and re-signification of the relationship (Ramos, 2006). Fernanda breaks the house rules by developing dynamic ways of interaction; by doing this, she gains more space in the relationship. Similarly to Fernanda, Carolina breaks the rules of coexistence with her mother. "Sometimes she [mother] asks me to put my dirty clothes in the laundry basket; I linger, I stall, then she can't stand it and does it for me. I think she tries and thinks: one day she will do it" (Carolina, 29 years old).

The acknowledgement that the household space belongs to the parents seems to be sufficient for the rules to be accepted, thus avoiding relationship conflicts. However, this acceptance does not mean the children have to be silent; it does not deny their right to express discomfort when facing certain parental impositions. According to Ramos (2006), when adult children are granted equal rights, parental rules are not as strict anymore. We believe that Carolina's stalling is related to an experimental attitude concerning her routine by going beyond her mother's established boundaries, daring to slightly break the rules, expanding the space.

Marcelo and his parents have a relationship based on irony, playfulness, and mockery. The use of irony is also a kind of indirect and non-explicit communication, which may play the role of protecting the relationship from the possibility of conflict (Kaufmann, 2007). It allows dialogues without the risk of conflicts and reflects annoyance and discomfort.

"It's a quarrelsome way of being; I pick on my mother more, she gets mad; with my father I do it as well, he accepts the game and gets into it" (Marcelo, 29 years old).

Leticia says that she cannot be assertive and firm in daily disagreements with her parents, so she prefers to speak her mind by joking, smiling, and covering her uneasiness. The use of irony and playfulness conceals the seriousness of the circumstance, masking the confrontational intention. Leticia seems to use this form of communication to lessen a conflict that may arise from interaction. The communication objectives are reached through irony and playfulness, indicating the power that this type of language holds, especially in specific interaction situations.

We believe that this communication style, which is gentle and tactful, allows for easier enunciation. Nowadays, it seems to be preferable to shift direction and use a more indirect form of communication. The contemporary subject is intolerant to discomfort during coexistence (Peres, 2011). We highlight that these paths lead to what Simmel (1912/2003) said about the importance of conflict in interactions.

Five interviewees stated that the repeating the same conversation over and over causes discomfort and tension during coexistence. Kaufmann (2007) proposed that the repetitive routine seeks to diminish or defuse conflicts. Accordingly, repetition would be ritualized speech, which at the same time it reminds subjects of the conflict it tries to reduce it. Repetition equally shows the ability to emphasize or stress a conflict.

The interviewee Igor stated that his mother does not listen to him:

Bruna, another interviewee, noticed that her mother repeats the same conversational pattern:

The conversation only ends when Bruna pretends to agree with her mother's arguments, which is a strategy to stop her from repeating again - a tactic to avoid explicit confrontation. In

Bruna's speech, we notice impotence and acquiescence. According to the daughter, the fact that the mother gives her opinions over and over again indicates she does not recognize the other, does not listen nor see the other; in short, it is a speech to vent her feelings, as stressed by Kaufmann (1992).

We observed ambiguity in some interviewees' statements that defined the coexistence with parents as peaceful, whereas, at the same time, they defined it as repetitive, bothersome, and uncomfortable. These statements reveal hesitant and contradictory speech. The understanding of this contradiction does not seem clear to them.

Since ambivalence is an integral part of the subjects (Laplanche & Pontalis, 2001) and is inherent to family relations, we can say that the interviewees do not see this dimension in their lives. They may simply avoid reflecting upon something that does not make immediate sense to them. This way of thinking is aligned to what Henriques et al. (2011) stressed about the contradiction present in relationships between parents and adult children who live together. In this coexistence, a certain degree of ambivalence affects the predictability of actions and indicates the emotional exhaustion due to the situations faced.

On the other hand, it also enables the contribution of the non-nomination and nonclassification of what is already known, allowing expanded personal domains. If the subjects' understanding of the ambivalence may lead to coexistence with their parents, urging an increase in the limits or breaking the agreements made, the lack of understanding may indicate an environment that is marked by disorientation, tension, and discomfort.

Some interviewees did not have a winning perspective, which could help them see the coexistence contradictions in as something that is inherent and transitory. Others, however, seem to realize and have a winning perspective. We note that these apprehensions are in agreement with the premises of contemporary culture, which acknowledges pleasure and gain (Debord, 1997; Bauman, 2011) and conceal losses (Peres, 2011; Maciel Junior, 2012).

Leticia and Marcelo mentioned the difficulty to think, assess, and choose. According to Maciel Junior (2012), the subject may choose not to choose due to intense, worldly provocations and psychic tensions in which he or she must engage to respond to these provocations. "I'll have to live elsewhere; that's sad; I don't like thinking about it" (Leticia, 36 years old). "I know that someday I'll have to leave, I'll have to face that" (Marcelo, 29 years old). Not choosing may indicate that these subjects - as well as the kangaroo generation to which they belong (Gallagher et al., 2013) -, choose to avoid difficult situations and experiences that may cause discomfort and.

We also observe today that pain and grief are not accepted today like they used to be in more traditional times (Peres, 2011). The contemporary subject does not accept suffering; he or she submits him/herself to the modern cultural premises that one must always win. Words such as "loss," "death," and "sadness" indicate the subject's difficulty letting go of his or her material posessions without giving up what seems to be lost (Freud, 1916[1915]). We understand that while planning the process of home leaving, both Marcelo and Leticia were unable to see gain, only loss.

Carolina and Gustavo, however, seemed to acknowledge the possibilities of gains in this relational environment:

These two interviewees demonstrate that parental coexistence may be a period that consists of waiting for better times, when the achievement of life projects may be possible. The perceived gain is associated with the choice of a more long-term family coexistence, even if it involves tension and disorientation, as a necessary means to achieve futures plans (Gallagher et al., 2013).

The negotiation process (i.e., the construction and reconstruction of agreements; Ramos, 2006) defines the family environment as a flexible and pervious space. Advances and retreats of a relationship dynamics indicate a game of continuous reconstruction.

According to Gustavo and Bruna, their mothers try to speed up the process of leaving home.

The thought about leaving home is constructed in a dynamic way, establishing itself as an inter-game, in which the articulations are captured to formalize the process of leaving home. Joana and Marcelo's statements reveal how adult children subvert the relationship dimension with the purpose of preparing their parents for their leaving.

The choice of keep leaving together - despite knowing that they can have a separate home-, seems to be articulated in coexistence. This daily articulation enables family members to reconcile the sense of belonging while maintaining their own singularity (Henriques et al., 2011).

The following statements show situations of uncertainty, vagueness, and indetermination in the parents' home a sign of a waiting period for moving out. This period of time lived has nothing to do with cronus according to Gondar (1995). It is a personal experience since in our unconscious tells we are immortal. We consider that the same subject may experience different time overlaps and edifferent timing to deal with them. This multiple perspective enables a strategic assessment of the young adult who waits and hesitates.

We believe that the interviewees used expressions such as "in two years' time", "if it gets complicated, I'll leave", and "someday it will happen" to give meaning to the time dimension in the construction of the parental home-leaving process. These definitions seem to indicate a perception of coexistence marked by an idea of separating the parent-children relationship. According to Khel (2009), time is psychological; it cannot be "measured". Rushing things up - a characteristic of today's reality - goes against the time needed by the subject to understand something.