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: A man who stands up, will not be walked upon.

China is out of control. Put them in their place.

Output: Non-sexual-explicit


Input: Consider Input: Comment: Yeah, I'e been living with this issue for most of my life. I'm happy to keep it alive.

There's no question that men who make sexual overtures from a position of power commit an abuse of power. And yes, it's exactly these blurry lines that become problematic.

When I was quite young (I may even have been a minor) I had a boss who got sexual with me when we were alone in a room. I rebuffed him, and he was a gentleman about it. I was really annoyed, but I continued to work at that job for a while. Was it an abuse of power? Yes. Was it a crime? Actually, legally it may have been. But I don't think of it as a crime. Women used to experience this kind of stuff all the time. I'd like to think the culture has changed a bit since then.

Unfortunately, as you may remember, I have also been a rape victim. So I give women who claim they've been raped the benefit of the doubt. But...at times, it's not the truth.

Output: Sexual-explicit


Input: Consider Input: Comment: You completely missed the point of nigel's argument.  His co-worker had no insurance, and basically paid next to nothing for childbirth because he COULDN'T afford the regular cost out of pocket.  That is how other people were screwed, because that cost was passed on to the rest of us.

Seems to me that, if you want total freedom, and want people to have the freedom to not have to have insurance, then you need to decide whether or not someone should still get treated for an injury if they 1) chose to not buy insurance, and 2) can't afford the treatment.

Nigel's question wasn't whether or not someone should be able to pay out of pocket if they can afford it.....it was addressing whether or not someone that chose to not have insurance, and can't afford the treatment, should still be treated.

I'm curious to see if you will ever actually have an answer, or just another dodge.


Output: Non-sexual-explicit