Pheromones (or semiochemicals) are notoriously chemical cues of different molecular nature that convey a salient biological meaning in the communication between sender and receiver. traditionally the definition of pheromone by Karlson and Luscher in 1959 defines them as "molecules produced by conspecifics and eliciting innate responses in the receiver". Although this definition has been revised a lot, nowadays is still widely used. Recently (see Wyatt 2012) the distinction between "pheromones" (innately meaningful) and "signature odors" (subject to learning) has been introduced to take into account the experience related differences in "pheromonal perception". Indeed, as originally defined (single molecules able to trigger specific stereotyped behavioral responses in conspecifics), pheromones are less common than imagined. Often "meaningful odors" come in blends and mixes, they can vary between individuals (though conserving a main common base), age and habitat in which sender and receiver reside. 

I don't know if this answers your question, but if you want to have a wider view of what a pheromone is, compared to an odor (chemically they can't be really categorized like this, because potentially many body odors can turn into pheromones), look for some literature (reviews) by these authors: Wyatt, Hurst, Keverne, Tirindelli, Mucignat-Caretta, Zufall, Stowers, Rasmussen, Martinez-Garcia,  Doty. There are many others working on the subject but I think in these ones you may find the most relevant ideas representing the debate. 

Regarding your specific point I guess this comment doesn't help at all.

Thank you Oboti for the response. I am sure you must have gone through the recent article in nature methods by Sorge et al.2014.  There they have declined the role of pheromones in the impact of experimenter sex in mouse behavioral studies, possibly due to the conspecific nature of pheromones as you mentioned. Do you want to comment on that?

I will, briefly: firstly the original definition has been widely reconsidered, I just cited it for historical reasons. second the fact that an odorant can be felt as more "pungent" or aversive doesn't imply that has a pheromonal value. third, that story is on Nature and is a bit too simplistic. I don't expect men and women to have a whole separate set of body odors, rather I suspect there is a certain overlap.

See: J Chem Ecol (2008) 34:971–981. In the second page you will find your answer

@Diego Cruz...could you share that article here or provide me the title please...

Baker. 2008. Balanced Olfactory Antagonism as a Concept for Understanding Evolutionary Shifts in Moth Sex Pheromone Blends. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 34:971-981

Formally, odorants and pheromones are differentiated in animals with different sensory organs: odorants are sensed by olfactory receptors situated in the olfactory epithelium in the nasal cavity, but pheromones target the vomeronasal organ at the base of the nasal septum or on the roof of the mouth. Humans, probably do not have the vomeronasal organ, but can sense some of the pheromones. The interesting article about pheromones in humans is attached.

The ancient vision for the reception of pheromones by the vomeronasal organ and odorants by the olfactory epitelium has changed. Reception of pheromones is found also in the main olfactory epithelium and the Grueneberg ganglion.