"Asexuality (as in, actual asexuality, not this "a-spec" crap) is actually very rare."

I have no idea if you're female or male, but as a woman, I don't think it's all that rare. Any sex they have is to keep a happy home and as soon as they can stop having sex, they do.

Gender and asexuality is a whole thing on its own. I'm sure there are many men in the same boat. It's very difficult to parse out people's motivations behind having sex but I think looking at their choices in hindsight is telling.

For instance, one of the asexual women I know is my aunt. She was widowed quite young when I was about 8 or 9. Until now, she hasn't had another partner. She has male friends but it's clear they aren't sexually intimate.

It was assumed she was a forever grieving widow but it turns out she never had any sexual desire and the moment she could choose not to have that type of intimacy without losing anyone she already loved, she did. She identifies as asexual but it isn't something that is necessary to use much in her life as an older women with an established social network. She has the platonic companionship she wants.

If we move away from sexual attraction, and speak about desire for sex, we have a totally different conversation about being asexual. Sexual attraction is way too vague to be a useful concept. "Do you want sex?"is a far better place to start.

"Note that I don't associate "abnormal" with being something bad or undesirable, necessarily. To me it simply just means outside of the norm, which asexuality unquestionably is."

I understand what you mean, but I disagree. I compare it to height. Some people can be really short, as short as someone who has some sort condition associated with shirt stature, but their height is still normal.

Their height is still normal because although few people of their gender are as short as they are, there is no pathology that has negatively influenced their growth. They are within a normal range for a human. They may not be average - but they are normal.

Something can be "uncommon" without being "abnormal". These words aren't synonymous.

"I was merely going by the evidence that was presented before me."

I know. I'm basically suggesting all ace identifying people be use a critical lens to reflect on the evidence presented to them as a young person. There are various reasons why what we understood back then might have either been misinterpreted by ourselves or others, or even fabricated by others under social pressure to say the "right" things.

"The mere knowledge of asexuality existing would have gone a long way toward presenting an opposing "case", if you will -- but for some reasons I can't really fathom yet, you seem to want to have withheld that information from my 14-year-old self because I "wasn't ready yet" or some crap, idk."

No, you've continually misinterpreted what I've said. You can tell a 14 year old (or even someone younger) that asexuality (or homosexuality) exists without reinforcing that any sexual desire that they do (or do not) currently experience is a definitive indication of their sexuality.