In the strictest sense, humans don't have pheromones as in we can't communicate with each other using scents. We don't produce any specific compound that relays a message.
Since the purpose of sweat is to cool down the body, the scent is just a by product of the microorganisms on our skin, meaning there's no intention or purpose for it.
This is separate from an organism that releases pheromones to indicate they're searching for a mate, because even if the scent of someone's sweat is attractive to another, it doesn't tell the other person anything or prompt any particular behavior.
I'm presuming this is a response to my reblog of papayajuan2019's post that said "pheromones aren't real. sweat is just that good." to which I replied (in the tags)
the idea of “sweat smells good” being something separate from the concept of pheromones, i swear most people live in a mental world where there is Real Life in one box and there is Science in another box
First of all, you're neglecting the distinction between eccrine and apocrine sweat. Most mammals do use apocrine sweat primarily for thermoregulation, but we primates are the exception. We have eccrine sweat glands all over our bodies and apocrine sweat glands only in specific areas, and the apocrine sweat glands are the ones that respond to emotional states such as fear, pain, and sexual arousal.
The fact that the scent of apocrine sweat is released in interactions with microorganisms doesn't prove that it doesn't have a pheromonal function for us; it would be far from the only commensal interaction between an animal and a microbe.
The idea of separating attractiveness from prompting a particular behaviour... again, the only difference is that one goes in the Real Life box and the other in the Science box.
There's a common confusion when we talk about animal perception and animal behaviour. Science communicators tend to talk about perception in terms of conscious, deliberative knowledge because that's the clearest way to talk about the process of receiving information; but that doesn't mean that a moth's experience of snagging a pheromone in its chemoceptors is like the human experience of reading a sentence of printed text.
Science communicators also have a bad habit of talking about the biology underlying animal behaviour as if animals were machines and the inputs they receive from their environment flick switches and push levers and force them to act in particular ways whether they want to or not. There are some specific situations where that's not too far from the truth, but far more often what's happening is that the biological process prompts them to want to act in a particular way, which they then do.
I have a whole rant about the way we talk about biology and the way we separate it from experience, which I have gone into on past occasions and may well do so again; but I won't dump it on you in this answer.
Now I may well be an outlier; but I can assure you there have been times when the smell of a person's sweat, and nothing else, gave me a very strong feeling of I have to have sex with this person as soon as possible.
Once or twice that was in fact an appropriate response to the situation, and things ended happily. At other times it was not, so I didn't act on the feeling and things ended happily. Doesn't mean I didn't feel it.
