Demi-Panromantic Asexual?

You say "you think" you are this label. Do you want an opinion on that, or only on how to tell your partner about what you think you are?

 

OK, to start with, labels are of limited value, *especially* if you're focused on labels that have no grounding in science or research, or any sort of real credibility outside of a tiny group of people who have created them essentially out of crowdsourced groupthink.

As for what you've described...

Not feeling romantically attached to people unless you've formed a bond with them describes about 3/4 of the population. It is well within the spectrum of normal, ordinary human sexual attraction. There are a tremendous number of people who don't get crushes, don't find immediate attraction, etc. All of these are typical, ordinary hetero or bi or homosexuals. Nothing out of the ordinary.

As for asexuality... there's the recognized definition that's been in wide use for 40+ years, validated by research, and used by sexology, psychology, and other professionals (as well as just about everyone else) and then there's an alternate definition, created (again) out of crowdsourced groupthink, that (again) has no basis in anything and isn't recognized by anyone other than this tiny group of people who have created this definition.

If you're using the widely accepted definition, then, based on what you've said, you're definitely not asexual, as it is a hardwired orientation, in which the person has *no* sexual attraction whasoever... no interest in relationships, sex, or anything related to it. Asexuality according to this definition affects only a tiny portion of the population, and is unchangeable in the same way that homo and heterosexuality is unchangeable.

If you're using the definition used by the tiny group of people that have created their own definition, it could literally mean anything, as the definition changes depending on whose definition you read and the definition isn't grounded to or based on anything other than a group that's decided what it means. So you could fit into that group. So could almost anyone else.

It's also useful to know that it is not at all uncommon for people your age to have absolutely no interest in sex whatsoever. Again, this is completely within the normal spectrum of human sexual development. Some people feel strong sexual arousal at 8 or 9 years old; others don't develop it until their early 20s or even later. So rather than label yourself as asexual, the far more likely explanation is that you simply haven't yet developed that interest.

If I were in your situation, I wouldn't bother with the unrecognized labels. They just complicate things and paint you into a box. In my opinion, it would make a lot more sense to simply say something like "Hey, I want to talk about the sex thing. At least for now, and I don't see this changing any time soon, sex isn't something that interests me, nor is it something I'm comfortable with. And I don't want to feel forced or even gently encouraged into something I'm not comfortable with. So we really need to talk about this, because if this is really important to you, it's not something I can do, and so this relationship may not work out. But if that is something you can work with, then I'm down to continue, but I can't have you asking me every month for sex. I'll let you know when, or if, that changes."

That way, you avoid the label entirely (it really serves no purpose), you own your feelings and stick up for what's important to you, and you leave yourself the option to change your mind later if you decide it's something you'd like to explore.

If you really, really, really need a label, then bisexual or pansexual, with no qualifications, sounds to me like a perfectly fine and fitting one from what you've described, at least if you're going with a label that most people will actually understand and place any value in.