In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: sexual-explicit and non-sexual-explicit. A comment is considered sexual-explicit if it explicitly portrays sexual matters.

[Q]: Comment: Better than being uninformed with a Trump sticker on your rump.
[A]: Sexual-explicit


[Q]: Comment: Hogwash Gary - You cannot have your cake and eat it too. That is what I disrespect most about evolutionists, is the hypocrisy. If you are going to live by the sword, you must die by it. At least have the courage to admit and accept it. And why is sexual violence any more unacceptable that violence, the fact is you have no foundation as a Darwinist to condemn anything of this nature. If you are going to travel down this road, then you MUST defend animals we eat, and every other act of "violence" that imposes an outside will upon another being. I can discuss any topic rationally with any person, but hypocrisy is something I will not deal with.
[A]: Non-sexual-explicit


[Q]: Comment: One could infer from your comment that you think all homosexuals take part in anal sex (even females?) and NO heterosexuals do, and thus "being homosexual" simply means taking part in such activity. Naive, incorrect, and incredibly insulting presumptions like this are proof that the dialog proposed by Fr. Martin is very much  needed.
[A]:
Sexual-explicit