Categorize the comment on the basis of sexual explicitness. If the comment is sexually explicit output Yes, otherwise output No.

[EX Q]: Our newest crop of parents will now have the opportunity to explain to their pre-pubescent children the details of the various non-sexual acts that Bill Clinton did not have with Monica Lewinsky when he was President as well as what the big deal was about the 'blue dress' and the 'cigar'.   Or, considering it's all on the internet, they'll just look it up for themselves.  It's political history.   It certainly won't be hidden during the campaign from July to November.
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: He makes $200,000 a year working for Conoco-Phillips so we already know who he represents in the legislature. Plenty of men have earned sexual favors for buying a dinner costing a lot less than $100 bucks. So let's not argue about the power of paying for a nice dinner.
[EX A]: Yes

[EX Q]: ok...the story is strange. the story is ironic.  the story tells of what these people did...thinking it was a good idea.  the story tells of the fail.  one can laugh at a situation.  this story has the elements of amusing.  we read amusing stories everyday. the guy trading a monkey and girl scout money for sex...another guy falls through a ceiling  - twice ...the second  time being in front of a witness.  another guy has kiddie porn on his cell and then goes to claim it after being aware that the cops were aware. another guy has his kid shoot him in the leg for insurance money and then loses his leg.....  is this not funny because she asked to be shot?
[EX A]:
Yes