I am not sure why you are unwilling to accept that there could be motivations and interests outside the story that shape what happens inside.
It does not follow at all that I am unwilling to accept this. I simply explained what I think is the case in this particular instance, while referring to what was actually present between Kirk and Rand in the episodes that had Rand as a character in them. They didn't write Kirk or Rand as characters with zero attraction between them. It's explicit text in "Miri" that Rand wanted Kirk to notice her legs. It's implied by Kirk's mannerisms in "The Naked Time," when he says "No beach to walk on," that he finds Rand attractive. Do I even need to cite what happens in "The Enemy Within," including the observation Spock makes to Rand at the end? If Roddenberry didn't want there to be sexual tension between Kirk and Rand at least sometimes,
none of that would have happened.
Gene Roddenberry maintained attitudes on a range of things that made themselves into stories, often making for complications for the franchise over decades. One of his scripts even has Kirk bed a slave, an act of non-consensual sex. Even Pike dreams of dealing with sex slaves. As much as Roddenberry is credited for depicting women and minorities in positions of power, he could also undermine the progressiveness in other ways. His male heroes have problems.
So, what? This has no bearing on any of the issues that up until this point had been under discussion.
She read Kirk's attitude was that the family was the woman's domain; what she did was make sure he had no power in it. In the end, it was another situation from the sexual revolution from the 60s in which men were somehow more liberated than women.
This is said nowhere. It's noncanonical. You are injecting your headcanon and fanon into the story so that it conforms to your own worldview.
Carol Marcus' decision reflects things that we know about Kirk because we watched every episode ad infinitum. Kirk was rarely going to be there; why should he be there at all? I don't think the idea that it's Marcus who rejects Kirk really works. It is at best a retcon. It would be no different with any woman who found herself with a playboy.
The idea that it was Carol Marcus who wanted Kirk out of David's life is canonical. It's both spoken by Carol and acknowledged by Kirk. Carol's position is that they were both to blame for not being together. That's literal text in the dialog I quoted, requoted below. But since they were not going to be together, because she had her world and he had his, she wanted David in hers.
KIRK: I did what you wanted. ...I stayed away. ...Why didn't you tell him?
CAROL: How can you ask me that? Were we together? Were we going to be? You had your world and I had mine. And I wanted him in mine, not chasing through the universe with his father. ... Actually, he's a lot like you. In many ways. Please tell me what you're feeling.
Kirk can't have relationships, especially on the ship. He needs to be available.
Well, that's a goalpost shift. At first it was about "attachments." Now it's about "relationships." A no-strings-attached relationship is a relationship that precludes attachment. There is of course overlap, but ultimately
relationships and
attachments are two different things. The term
long-term relationship also underscores the distinction, with its qualification. I've boldfaced the goalpost shift.
The idea that Kirk feels he must remain unattached is baked into TOS, starting with Naked Time, no? It figured into the rationalization given for the dismissal of Grace Lee Whitney and the removal of her character: the captain needs to be free, and can't have attachments, especially on the ship.
