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: that you are so pompously arrogant to speak on behalf of all the public, you might consider counseling to address your inflated ego problem.
[A]: Non-sexual-explicit


[Q]: Comment: If we go by the writer's logic, all cities should increase taxes on their rich, so high, that all the rich leave the city because as per the writer when rich will leave "Cheaper housing, fewer jerks. It’s a win/win". Listen to the writer, all cities throw out your rich. I hope the writer gets the sarcasm
[A]: Non-sexual-explicit


[Q]: Comment: Okay, my second major problem with this article. I am not an historian, so I can't be sure, but I'm pretty sure that the "sex for resources" exchange type of marriage never existed. Up until the early 20th century, I am fairly sure that marriage was fundamentally about securing, maintaining, and extending family wealth. Both men and women were jointly providing services, and both were getting sex, but most negotiations were familial anyway. And even later, once married women were hardly the "keepers" of sex - they were subject to the will of their husbands, leading to John Stuart Mill quote on marriage as the invisible tyranny. So anyway, a far cry from this presentation of "good old days" marriage as a negotiation between two people, marriage was a familial economic planning activity involving the subjugation of women.  But women still bought in because it was the only way they could have sex without suffering community censure.
[A]:
Sexual-explicit