I'm not an expert on these things, but does it automatically mean he's got AGP, or can it just be a case of cross-dressing? As icky as cross-dressing might be, it's fairly common. From wikipedia on the topic:
"The general culture has very mixed views about cross-dressing. A woman who wears her husband's shirt to bed is considered attractive, while a man who wears his wife's nightgown to bed may be considered transgressive. Marlene Dietrich in a tuxedo was considered very erotic; Jack Lemmon in a dress was considered ridiculous.[97] All this may result from an overall gender role rigidity for males; that is, because of the prevalent gender dynamic throughout the world, men frequently encounter discrimination when deviating from masculine gender norms, particularly violations of heteronormativity."
I never thought of it this way; that it's OK for us to dress in a masculine way but not the other way round. So maybe the ick about cross-dressing is much to do with socially proscribed ideas of masculinity. To employ some flexible thinking, why is a woman wearing the boy-short style of underwear not seen as icky like a man wearing a woman's pair of knickers?
The reason I'm pointing all this out is to encourage some critical thinking on the subject, because it does seem such an enormous pity to end a marriage over a private sexual pleasure. On paper, it doesn't make sense to throw everything away over that.
But on the other hand, when it comes to pure emotions, I understand COMPLETELY about the ick. I would feel exactly the same way and would hate, hate, hate having a husband who was into all this. That's my knee-jerk reaction. It's a sort of betrayal, in a way. As in, you threw in your lot with him when you married him, on the assumption that he was into YOU, and then it turns out he's into something that has nothing to do with you.
It's a tough one, and I sympathise hugely.
Not for the first time, I do wonder why humans have organised their society so that our very families and homes are all dependent on the existence of sexual attraction, which is so easily dampened. Dampened by things like dirty dishes, never mind stuff like this. I wonder if previous generations had it right, where people did not marry for romance and sexual attraction but for practical reasons, like having children or pooling property.
The OP says this happened quite some time ago and has not been able to get over it. In that case, they are just going to have to divorce. It's very sad, but you can't be married forevermore to someone to whom you have no sexual attraction. A divorce would give both parties freedom to pursue their own sexual preferences.
In OP's shoes, after the divorce was done, I'd need some good solid shagging from a man who was really into me to make this ick go away.