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.

Ex Input:
Comment: Hogwash Gary - You cannot have your cake and eat it too. That is what I disrespect most about evolutionists, is the hypocrisy. If you are going to live by the sword, you must die by it. At least have the courage to admit and accept it. And why is sexual violence any more unacceptable that violence, the fact is you have no foundation as a Darwinist to condemn anything of this nature. If you are going to travel down this road, then you MUST defend animals we eat, and every other act of "violence" that imposes an outside will upon another being. I can discuss any topic rationally with any person, but hypocrisy is something I will not deal with.

Ex Output:
Non-sexual-explicit


Ex Input:
Comment: Sounds like McComas had a few priors but the theft was the only prior that left a victim. He might have tried something stupid that angered the cop. Freedom of information absolutely should be available as soon as it is discovered, for anyone to study. I'm not saying the police are corrupt but they do protect each other. What I fear is the concept of "We have conducted a thorough internal investigation and find no wrong doing on the part of the officer"

Ex Output:
Non-sexual-explicit


Ex Input:
Comment: In Trudeau's case, it's better to be a snivelling coward and save a few votes then to risk having a safe, vote rich area suddenly discover like the rest of Canada has that he's a liar. and a phoney.

Ex Output:

Non-sexual-explicit