Professor X: How Childhood Neglect Shaped Charles Xavier

Disclaimer: Primarily this will cover the universe of X-Men movies in terms of characterization.

Charles's Childhood

Honestly it doesn't surprise me that Charles didn't have a good childhood, looking at the rest of the X-Men it seems like a common theme. Between Jean Grey and Logan Howlett, I think I could name more depressing backstories than happy ones.

In the case of Charles, however, it gets particularly interesting due to his telepathic abilities and the sheer strength of them.

Charles was born in 1932 and grew up rather privileged—extremely so. He was white, he was rich, and he was male. His primary point of discrimination really only comes from the fact he is a mutant. However, outside of that his childhood is interesting. 

Charles Xavier lost his father before his mutant abilities began to form at age nine, when he was still very young his mother remarried after much convincing from his father's late colleague, Dr.Kurt Marko. The last name might be familiar due to a popular character by the name of Cain Marko—a.k.a Juggernaut. If you know anything about Juggernaut, you know that his father's regular abuse shaped who he became in adulthood, an abuse that he projected the anger from onto Charles even before their parents married.

After his mother's marriage and his telepathic abilities formed, it didn't take much for Charles to figure out Dr.Marko only wanted his mother's money and that he was regularly abusing his mother, leading her down a road of alcoholism and neglect in the comics.

As for the movies, however, we really have no proof of any abuse towards Charles at all outside of the neglect from his mother and Juggernauts existence—despite his shallowness and lack of character.

However neglect itself is a large part of Charles' character as neglect does shape any child into adulthood and it is through his mother's neglect that Charles meets his sister, Raven.

In the first scene we see Charles and Raven interact with teach other in X–Men: First Class at age twelve in the opening scenes—no sign of a father in sight, so we can assume his father is indeed deceased—Charles clocks Raven as an imposter due to the sheer fact that she attempted to care for him while playing the part of his mother. 

Other than this, we know very little about his backstory in the X–Men movies. Charles went on from his childhood to become a Professor of Genetics at Oxford University before forming the original X–Men in the government's "Division X" program.

But that does not mean his backstory and childhood are unnecessary details.

Charles' Adulthood

When you look at the neglect from Charles' childhood and his actions (and reactions) as an adult, a lot of things begin to re–contextualize in a way that makes sense. 

For example: The way Charles argues. 

In X–Men: Days of Future Past, X–Men: First Class and even in Dark Phoenix we see Charles argue in a way that can be described more as someone lashing out. When he argues with Raven he is much more likely to yell one thing and then speak much more calmly the rest of the time, a reflection of the fact that Charles has known her a long time and trusts her the same way she knows to trust him and can handle his outbursts. This goes in contrast for the way Charles argues with Erik—in the one large instance that he does yell at Erik it is on the plane in the Days of Future Past movie, where Charles quite literally grasps Erik by his shirt and yells in his face.

Speaking of that scene, it perfectly shows the lowest of Charles' abandonment issues—another symptom that can manifest from neglectful childhoods. If you take a moment to rewatch the scene, one thing I noticed as I did so was that Charles was much angrier at Erik for leaving him over the actions that he committed. Not only that but by extension causing him to lose his sister as well. 

So those cover both the emotional regulation and abandonment issue sections of neglectful parenting effects, but are there any other's portrayed in Charles Xavier? 

Yes!

Addictions and dependencies. Specifically on the drug provided to him by Hank—a.k.a Beast—shown in X–Men: Days of Future Past. Not only that but the implication of Charles' struggles with alcohol in the same movie. Children of neglect are scientifically shown to be 1.2 times more likely to develop an addiction and/or a dependence on addictive substances than children without neglect, and the X–Men films showcase this part of Charles very well.

In many scenes of Charles in the Days of Future Past movie, especially earlier in the film, Charles is shown drinking, especially during rather emotional scenes. His first (young) introduction in the movie, after his argument with Erik, etc. While it's not explicitly stated, his dependence is there. He's showcased with increased anxiety, emotions, and reaches for a glass when things get tough. 

Though it's much clearer in the portrayal with Charles and the drug from Hank. Charles at first is explained as having taken the drug—at the sacrifice of his powers—to gain his ability to walk. Though, by looking at the context of past movies we can actually understand that Charles took the drug to get rid of his powers with an added bonus of getting his legs back because of the fact that Hank developed the drug in First Class and then seemingly perfected and improved it over the years since. 

Either way, his dependence is clear. He becomes extremely and clearly distressed when he cannot take it and even shows other more typical signs of an addiction: irritability, anxiety, heightened emotions, distress, etc.

Summary

In general, it's clear that the neglect from Charles' childhood affects him deeply into adulthood even in ways I haven't brought up in this post. But between his childhood and the addiction in his appearances, it's a real surprise that he's as functional as he is. And he is not very functional...

Swimsuits and Superheroes: Why Marvel Rivals Isn't Just About Sex Appeal

One thing I've found interesting since the release of Marvel Rivals is the insistence of the game being "gooner bait", especially when it comes down to not only the character skins but the characters they add to the game and way they are portrayed. Despite this common perception of it genuinely being a game made with sexual bait, I firmly disagree.

Here's why.

Marvel Rivals Skins

With the release of the recent summer event featuring a variety of characters in swimsuit attire, an alarming amount of people have come forward with the instance of Marvel Rivals turning into a game with a focus on sexual appeal.

But with the release of these skins and their theme, it does come with the debate of the actual intended audience of the character's skins. Despite what many believe, I think that the developers of Marvel Rivals—especially those who design and produce the skins in the game—both have and continued to align with their original intentions: Character customization. Entirely outside of the desire from the audience for sex appeal. In fact, most of the "sexual nature" of these summer event skins comes from the audience, not the developers. 

Between the five released skins upon the time of writing this, I do understand the reasons people may believe that the game is focusing on sex appeal, but each reason ties into two simple sections, Firstly, human anatomy and secondly, the theme of the event.

When it comes to the "gooner" aspect of the skins there are three main parts that are focused on and for the lack of better words these parts are breasts, dick, and ass. 

For example, the Psylocke skin and one of the most controversial summer skins.

The skin in itself, in my eyes, is not sexual and I do not believe anything could change my mind. The theme of the event in itself is summer—specifically beaches, swimsuits, and all those other stereotypical aspects of summertime fun. 

A theme that the skin fits perfectly.

The sword on her back shows a subtle wave detailing with a fish chain, she is wearing a swimsuit (which one expects at the beach), she wears a typical accessorized covering woman wear at beaches usually to take off before going into the water, and all in all there is really nothing inherently sexual.

The assumed sexual nature comes from only the fact her breasts are partially shown as well as her backside. Which, once more, is expected from a swimsuit. 

While the specific style of swimsuit is revealing in the aspects of her stomach area and torso, but when it comes to video games there is not much surprise. If designers of skins gave each character a typical one piece swimsuit that left little room for actual design and flare there would be virtually no point in creating them. Nobody would want to collect a simplistic skin such as that. 

Which is why Marvel Rivals focuses on those details and flare, providing a unique look to each swimsuit skin make it worth collecting or buying. When it comes down to it, that is the goal of video games: have events be engaging with rewards players want and have even better skins available behind a paywall in order to get money from the game itself.

Beyond just the design of the skin, the anatomy of the character comes into the argument quite a lot. But, this is another point I disagree with. 

Marvel Rivals focuses a lot on its character design and artstyle, especially when adapting decade old comic book characters into a game format that developers wish to keep engaging. With this artstyle, comes the need to actually draw the characters. These designs are actually something I applaud within the game.

Proportion wise, the game excels. No character is ridiculously out of proportion outside of the typical "fictional format" type. The woman aren't ridiculously skinny—always with a more realistic body type than found in many other types of media or gameplay—while the men aren't all muscle and nothing else outside of what is to be expected from their backstories. 

For example: Thor. An Asgardian warrior, which is expected to have that muscle that he does.

The same thing applies to the more taboo parts of the human body. When it comes to the aforementioned Psylocke skin, one thing I do genuinely appreciate is the realism when it comes to the shape and size of her breasts objectively. They follow gravity, are not abnormally large, and realistically if I went to a gym and looked at some of the woman in that environment, I wouldn't be surprised if I saw somebody with her body type.

The same format can apply to the controversial skin on the exact other end of the spectrum: Loki's Summer Skin.

The thing I have seen most talked about is the elephant in the room if you look at this skin for more than a few moments: his penis. The noticeable bulge in his swimsuit. However, like the Psylocke skin, I do not view this as sexual. It is a statement of fact that, yes, a man tends to have a penis the same way a woman tends to have breasts. Having these parts does not necessarily make the design sexual, especially when portraying a woman and a man. 

When a man wears a swimsuit—especially one in the style Loki is wearing—it will show a bulge because he does have a penis. There is really no other way to put it.

Due to the realism of the Marvel Rivals artstyle and the fact the artists of the game do keep the body's realistic? Yes, both of the men who got summer skins—Loki and Thor—are going to have those aspects, even if it is more noticeable in the Loki variant.

Summary

When it comes down to it, a game as popular as Marvel Rivals with the variety in characters and skins that they have, there is always going to be strange and sexual people in the community. However, when it comes to the accusations of this game being "gooner bait"? I continue to disagree and instead will continue to insist that each "gooner" aspect is merely anatomy or a desire for a lack of bland design. 

With a game as diverse as Marvel Rivals and the long run of Marvel comics, movies, and other products? The diversity is going to show in this large project that is the video game.