By that logic all nuns and monks who’ve never experienced romantic or sexual temptation are afflicted by a mental disorder, as are any teenagers who sign up very easily to abstinence because they don’t have these attractions, as are all prepubescent children.
There’s nothing unnatural about being asexual and not feeling romantic attachments. There’s nothing harmful about it either.
The LGBTQIA+ mafia, and the NAMBLA lot, don’t like asexuality even in kids. Do you think they’re right?
You might be right in saying lower emotional stability though. But reasoning?
I’d say girls desperate to show off their curves, or get nose/breast surgery, or get to first base for peer approval reasons, are the ones who are less emotionally resilient, less sensible, and less guided by reason.
They’re far more likely to get hurt by boys, or get accidentally pregnant.
Straw man argument, lack of an attraction is not a deviation from your biological sex, even if it were that would be far the exception.
Having known priests and nuns (grew up catholic) I can assure you most do indeed struggle with sexual temptation, the choice of celibacy is not typically devoid of sexual desires.
Regardless of a Biblical view, in which in case is quite clear (man and a woman only), or an evolutionist view (which in the simplest terms would require such sexual attractions to burn out as they fail to propagate the species, proponents of these sexual deviancies just have no ground to stand on. It is a aberrant behavior that violates nature.
Also at no point did I intimate there was any form of sexuality in prepubescent children, another strawman of yours, tear it down all you like, I will not engage further in the point. Of course such children have no defined sexual preference until after puberty.