In terms of pleasure and pain, it's possible to be a superhero of self-restraint (able to resist temptation better than most) or superwimp (unable to resist what most people can).
So we can be either steadfast or soft in resisting. Most people are in between.
A licentious person loves pleasures excessively and cannot be changed. He chooses vice and loves it. No shame there.
Some don't choose but are overcome by pleasure (or by a desire to avoid pain).
A person who does terrible things without being overpowered by desire is just awful and scary. How would such a person act if he were actually prompted by something?
In this case, a licentious person is worse than a person with a lack of self-restraint. A person LSR is merely "soft."
A steadfast person "holds out" against something; a self-restrained person kicks that something's butt. So to be self-restrained is way better.
A soft or delicate person is a kind of wimp: he can't hold out against even the things that everyone else can withstand.
It's the effort that matters. No one will blame you if, after a good struggle, you give in to strong pleasures or pains.
Aristotle dissects lack of self-restraint and finds that it's part lack of impulse control, part weakness.
People lacking self-restraint might be weak in their resolve. They deliberate and choose well, but can't stick to their resolution. Others just don't really think.
Those who're nervous/excitable or depressive seem to be the most impetuous. They appear to follow imagination rather than reason.