very simplistic... I have been badly abused by two men. One of them was what you might call a "functional alcoholic", he held down a good job and so on but couldn't go more than a few hours without a drink (not necessarily "getting drunk" but having a pint or two), and certainly not a day. He got more physical the more he'd had to drink, but the ongoing abuse was not tied to a level of drunken-ness or a time of day. The other was a teenager (same age as me at the time), didn't drink, didn't do drugs, didn't even smoke. And to be honest, he was scarier, and perpetrated more extreme abuse on a more regular basis. In my inexpert opinion he was just psychotic. The trouble with terms like "alcoholic" and "psychotic" is that it implies an illness and "it's not his fault"-ness and a sense of it being involuntary on his part and that I should feel sorry for him and he should get a group hug and all sorts of niceness to make him feel better while I get Jack Schitt. I think part of it is a potential victim who is already a little bit isolated and doesn't have amazingly high self esteem. It's then easier for the potential abuser to take control, flex his power, feel like a Big Man (or woman) and move into full-blown abuse. But I don't believe that just anybody becomes an abusive git - I reckon it's in there and it's just a question of when and how it comes out.