instruction:
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.
question:
Comment: I agree with Ms. McAnulty! I wonder what reaction there would be if a bunch of guys wore red cock and blue balls hats and marched around the city center. I expect it would be negative in the extreme no matter what they were protesting or supporting. There are certainly better ways to express dissatisfaction with President Trump than to stoop to vulgarity which is what I consider was done by those who marched with their pink genitalia hats.
answer:
Sexual-explicit


question:
Comment: But Brexit, Trump, etc. have shown people can be di*cks! Many of them don't even know what they are voting for.
answer:
Sexual-explicit


question:
Comment: Thanks for your reply, Pat.  I did look at the site you posted and, as you probably suspect, I disagree with most of it.
1. While clumsily stated, it's already a fairly Catholic notion.  
2. God revealed Himself as "Father," and Jesus was certainly male.  Using "inclusive language" is not a translation of anything, then, but a re-write that holds not even a tenuous grasp on that which was originally written.  In addition, it would make the reading clumsy and prone to all sorts of error. The remainder of this tenant also rejects the very first of the Decalogue - not good at all!
3. Earth is not mom.  It is not a being in any sense of that word.  We must be good stewards of resources but for the sake of others, not for the sake of an anthropomorphic planet.
4. While the words are English, the statement makes no sense.  It appears to be written to sound important but there is no logical cohesiveness to the various phrases.
5. Honestly, psychobabble, IMO.
answer:

Non-sexual-explicit