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.

Input: Consider Input: Comment: Right you are... he ended up not being charged, let alone convicted for Child Pornography. I stand corrected.

However - the first part of my comment stands. Had he engaged in an illegal discussion of any other flavor, the 15 year old would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The 15 year old in this case is not guilty of anything, but to pretend that in this very case she is a victim of a two-sided conversation when in any other case she would, indeed, be guilty for engaging in a conversation of an illegal nature, is nothing short of bizarre. This hypocrisy is worse than AW's creepiness.

I find this particular case nothing short of delicious, as it was AW who co-sponsored the “Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act,” a bill to require sex offenders to register their email addresses and instant-messaging accounts. The prosecutors said Mr. Weiner had, in public remarks, said “the internet is the predator’s venue of choice today.” 

Tru dat!

Output: Sexual-explicit


Input: Consider Input: Comment: Fat ass, go eat another do-nut.

Output: Sexual-explicit


Input: Consider Input: Comment: Of course, if there is a Paul Jenkins proffering nonsense from the political right, why shouldn't there be a Shannyn Moore proferring nonsense from the political left? Both are correct: stupid is beating smart, but neither appears to know they're champions for the winning side.


Output: Non-sexual-explicit