I have thought more about your predicament during the day. Several things:

1) You have a very biased view of the world history. You need to read about women who were powerful and highly sexually active, on their own volition and not through being submissive.

Some of the most obvious characters that come to mind:

Cleopatra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Elizabeth is satisfied that reckless, passionate Mary's romantic misadventures will keep her busy in Scotland and give shrewd, practical Elizabeth less to worry about." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary,_Queen_of_Scots_(film) - for a list of historical liberties, see the end of the article

Also, from your HS curriculum,

Romeo and Juliet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2) You are probably too young and your sexual drive and abilities have not had a chance to develop, so you mistake the current situation with the situation that you would be in forever. Women are not less sexual than men, and to the extent that your can "quantify" sexuality (you really cannot, but let us pretend you could), some of them are more sexual, because women - many of them - can have one orgasm after another after another, but men have what is called a "refractory period" - they need to wait. This is a huge oversimplification, but I am oversimplifying on purpose, to counteract your oversimplification. The thing is, male sexuality is mandatory for the perpetuation of the species and female sexuality is optional, so it has been neglected over many centuries in many countries (not all). Female genital mutilation (FGM) is the epitome of suppressing female sexuality. But the point is - female sexuality exists. The reason it has been suppressed is because it exists. If women did not want sex, there would be no need for suppressing their sexual needs and the horrible custom of FGM would never have developed. You personally might not have yet discovered yourself, sexually, and that is totally OK and the process will take you years.

3) If I understand correctly, "fun" has been placed in quotation marks to imply that you cannot have real fun exposing yourself. I cannot agree more. Again, this is an issue with the use of language. "expose yourself" is a pretty horrifying term from the law enforcement's parlance - the crime is called that of "indecent exposure". I can guarantee you that not any sane person on this Earth has ever had fun "exposing herself". What people have fun with is being playful in front of the camera, and playfulness, be it done via using fun language, batting your eyelashes, smiling, laughing, or having (safe - take precautions) fun with the camera is always a good thing. It helps you enjoy life, it is hedonistic in a good way, it helps you connect with other people.

That said... your current bf is not the kind of person you would want to connect with, be it via technology or in person. To the extent that you are sexually inexperienced and he is - more or less - it was his responsibility to make you at least somewhat excited about sexuality, and he failed that responsibility quite miserably. What he needed to do was to worship your body so that you would want to be (safely) playful on camera or playful in the bedroom, and instead he made it your duty to be naked on camera (that is what you said - may I assume that he also tried to make it your duty to do things in the bedroom?). Nobody wants to be naked out of duty. Nobody your age should do anything out of duty in a relationship - relationships should be fun. So he should have made you excited and he failed, and moreover he tried to get sex of you manipulating you which was stupid and lame - besides, it was wrong, but the point for you was that it was stupid and lame. So he is basically a loser and an idiot.

He is impolite, sexually. Assuming you wrote what you wrote in the OP because you do not derive pleasure from sex yourself, a normal, polite, NICE male would develop some healthy anxiety over being unable to light your sexual fire. Instead, he tried to responsibilize you. This is impolite, and, again, lame, stupid, rude, and egocentric.

He is also very boring. The talk about having his needs met is extremely boring. Why would you want to stay with a person who is so boring?? You can check out a textbook from your library instead - a textbook would be equally boring but would not demand that you perform sexual acts for it.

You get nothing positive out of the relationship, it does not benefit you in any way, and yet you suffer from fearing that he would go with another girl. So why are you staying in a relationship without any benefit at all and with high costs?? Why?

No point. So discard him, do not get into any new relationships with males for a while and just stay happy and meet your emotional needs outside of a male/female relationship.

4)
It sure sounds like it!!

To the extent that you might be uncomfortable with your body - and you should not be, but you might be - try at least walking naked in the privacy of your apartment - if you live in a dorm, it is not possible, but if you rent your place, it is. Also try non-sexual exposure to nudity - just go to public pools (swimming is always a good idea, too, for health and relaxation) and observe real bodies of real women, naked, and be comfortable being naked yourself, in a non-sexual, non-erotic way. Maybe watch some tasteful European erotica, masturbate if you can without trying to please anybody or perform for anybody - just explore your body for your own pleasure. If you have enough privacy, go in front of a mirror in private and touch your body lovingly, looking at it in the mirror. Eventually, get together with someone who would worship you and not talk about "meeting his needs". Blech!

Good luck.