A BL friend of mine recently ended up talking to a couple in a similar situation -- except in their situation, the wife was highly motivated to save the marriage. Once she understood the problem, she agreed with enthusiasm to dress boyishly in certain circumstances, and to go through her husband's fantasies of meeting a nice boy. This finally ended, at least some of the time, with a sex act that boys and girls don't differ much in. Amazingly - perhaps the fellow had just a trace of hetero in him - this was reported to work spectacularly well for both parties.

Alas, your wife feels she's been sold a bill of goods and she's not going to settle for anything other than what she originally contracted for. I am sorry to say, that in effect, she seems to have already divorced you -- there is no "what can we do to make something work for ourselves?" It's "you promised me heterosexuality, now pay up, buddy." The complicity is gone and has been replaced by ultimatum. Only you would know if that's the whole story, but that's the story as reported here.

You do still have a chance to have a "spiritual marriage," the old ideal of early catholicism, where couples who married would universally do better if they decided not to have sex at all. (see John Boswell, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (1994), Villard Books, ISBN 0-679-43228-0). But I would be surprised if your wife subscribes to this type of ascetic mysticism. She probably wants a husband who will lie with her and have an orgasm out of a sense of passionate unity with her. Not a totally unreasonable ambition for someone who got married in modern times.

There's an aphorism: "every truly heterosexual woman deserves a truly heterosexual man." Some women may waive their right if they like the right gay guy or BL, but for those who are so inflexible as to insist, take pity, perhaps. It's a big stretch to marry someone whose marital interest in you, unbeknownst to you, is so extremely unconventional as to virtually exclude sexuality.