Others have pointed out that strength and self-control are not pre-requisites for any particular role. They're pre-requisites for being a functional member of society. So far, I'm in full agreement.
Where I differ in opinion is that the type of strength required for respective roles is the same.
I believe that there are extra skills required to function well as a submissive... and that these are subtly different to the extra skills required as a Dominant.
On the Dominant side, probably the most challenging area of self-control is the need to keep one's emotions largely removed from the play space/living space. At the most basic level of play, negative emotions such as anger or jealousy can change the texture of play considerably.
A flogger thrown in anger is a dangerous thing. Beyond the physical, there's the capacity to do emotional damage to the person you're playing with.
The same kind of thing is true of internal strength (or rather weaknesses). An insecure or frightened Dominant is a genuinely scary thing to be around.
Of course, in a play space this isn't critical... Yes, a scene can go bad... but ultimately the chance of long-term damage is extremely unlikely.
In a living space - By which I mean a 24/7 D/s relationship - that's less true. An angry Dominant can do considerable emotional damage not just to her slave, but also to Herself. And yet, as we all know, things like unexpressed anger can, themselves, be toxic to a relationship.
Figuring out all this shit (and remaining true to form) requires unusual strength: A high degree of emotional intelligence, a strong sense of ethic and the strength of character to make (and follow through with) difficult decisions.
In a D/s relationship, both sides of the relationship equation are required to display emotional intelligence... But it is the Dominant's responsibility to provide calm leadership through (what can sometimes be) rather rough territory. And (tying this into a previous thread)... During these tough times just as submissives can get decidedly "bratty"...
Dominants can get "testy", "petulant", capricious and querulous.
But even during these times of fractiousness and rancor - Dominants are held to a higher standard - Although we can "play" anger, disappointment or even fear ...We often have to process the real emotions somewhere outside of the relationship.
Now... I've read the same self-help books everyone else has. So undoubtedly, someone is going to regurgitate some pop psychology about "owning your own anger" and having a "right to be angry". And if someone wants to regurgitate it, I don't mind (so long as they clean it up afterwards)
But I'm not talking about D/s 101 here - If you buy into the structure (as I do) - you also buy into the notion that there are some things that a Dominant does _not_ have a right to. And no matter what self-help book you read... all of them talk in detail about being free to express negative emotions... but gloss over the challenges of acting upon those emotions.
To be frank, as many things that D/s is good for (defining boundaries, assigning responsibilities, rules of engagement, etc., etc.) - And despite the fact that it calls for and encourages emotional honesty - It's not a perfect system.
Because Dominants are required to curb so many of their emotions, a Dominant can end up with a trunk full of resentment from years of biting their tongue. In fact, one of the very things that makes Dominants interesting... their emotional reserve (a good thing) ...is just a hair's breadth away from emotional distance (a bad thing)... and not so far from sociopathic distance (a really bad thing).
The self-control that the Dominant role requires may not be greater than the self-control needed to be (for an example) an accountant. But the risks and rewards a Dominant faces are different - hence She needs different skills and strengths.
Respectfully,
Lady Nichola