@N0b0dysMot
No - I was confident enough actually. I'm not terribly attractive, but that's because I'm thin and small and probably come across like Michael Gove (despite this I got married quite young and had a few GFs beforehand whom I remember fondly). One could (and sometimes people have) unkindly described me as scrawny. On reflection I did OK despite my looks.
I was making two related points. The first was that I didn't see the men around me who were in touch with their feelings being particularly sought-after. In my view, the men who did well were, in general, tall, slim and personable. Showing emotion was probably a slight negative and (without being described as such) considered unmanly (this was the mid 90s UK).
To be honest, I'm not sure whether or not I came across as in touch with my emotions / a sook / whatever.
The second point was that two decades down the track I've learned there is an enormous benefit in hiding one's emotions. While in theory DW would think there was nothing wrong with me showing emotion (ie, crying if upset) in reality I have to be quite careful not to disturb her. I think she wants to know that I'm going to sort things out if the shit hits the fan, as it has a number of times for her.
Things being 'manly' aren't really spoken of without laughter these days, but I think emotional continence has traditionally been seen as a good thing for men for good reasons: it shows being able to take responsibility.
It probably also means a man is less likely to resort to domestic violence. I note that a lot of points subsequent to yours mention abusiveness my men; however, that would seem to be the opposite of self-control, particularly emotional self-control.