When will people understand that even the venerable Harrier did not carry out VLs or VTOs on asphalt as it too would trash the runway. It is a combination of heat, high-pressure air and their combined duration which first melts and then subsequently "distributes" the asphalt to various corners of the airfield that's the issue here - it was no failing of the Harrier that this was the case for 40 years, and is no failing of the F-35 that Physics hasn't change since.
It is for this reason that we built concrete VL/VTOpads (or used the concrete sections of runways thresholds in certain emergencies) to VTO or VL onto. Moreover, the effect of STOVL jet thrust on asphalt was also a reason that you wouldn't see a Harrier VL or VTO at UK air shows, primarily because the routine was set for an asphalt surface and few UK runways were still concrete halfway down at 'crowd centre'. Yes, as LO has been keen to point out, VL and VTO have occurred in the USA but they were invariably made to concrete surfaces - concrete runways are much more commonplace in the USA and in many eastern european countries, especially ex-Soviet Bloc ones.
Anyway, this whole issue should not be such a difficult concept for non-STOVL types to grasp; the situation was ever thus. F-35B can [and will] hover with ease; it can [and will] VL when required to do so; and it won't need to VTO because why would you when you've a short strip, carrier deck or runway available most of the time?!