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: Here we go again.  

The problem with Milo is exactly the same as the problem with Thomas Sowell, which is likely to become the problem with Camille Paglia:  In the authoritarian world of identity politics, your politics are owned by your group identity.

Milo is Libertarian and openly homosexual (as is Camille Paglia).  His real sin is his honesty.  Make no mistake, statutory rape is rape regardless of consent by the victim, because the victim simply is not old enough to consent.  Milo had his first (homo)sexual encounter when he was 13 or 14 with a Catholic priest .  Thirteen or fourteen is too young to have sex -- homosexual or otherwise -- but they're doing it anyway.  Milo's politically unforgivable transgression was to explain that he was a willing participant and to describe the personal importance of the experience.

His account made me uncomfortable because it forced me to confront realities outside of my personal experience.  That's one of the things good journalism does,
[A]: Sexual-explicit


[Q]: Comment: Researchers: It wasn't about free speech. Nobody came with rolls of duct tape to silence the other. The white supremacists came armed and ready to kick ass, not discuss.
[A]: Sexual-explicit


[Q]: Comment: Jesus was Jewish and didn't advocate or endorse beheadings, murder of killings. So Trump would have let him in. Congratulations. You just figured out that leaders of Christian countries don't follow the Christian bible . 

Well Trudeau is the leader of Canada, a country  based on Christianity. The Bible doesn't approve of homosexuality yet Trudeau endorses homosexuality. How do you figure that?c
[A]:
Non-sexual-explicit