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

Ex Input:
The Spenard Action Committee questioned people's actions for years and changed the look of Spenard.  If a person sees something wrong they should question the activity.

Ex Output:
No


Ex Input:
To all of you people that say he's impeding the flow of traffic or what happened to the there's 5 vehicles behind you you must yield the right-of-way. Do you see those fluorescent triangles it means slow moving  vehicle and do you see the four horses pulling that wagon in the state of Oregon those four horses have the right of way on any roadway. Remember just because your car can do 110 miles an hour you don't have to be an asshole

Ex Output:
Yes


Ex Input:
I suspect that Pavel was not liked by some within UO.  UO administrators are not subject to any serious review or quality standards and thus feel free to act out their emotions rather than represent we the citizens of Oregon as they should.  The trouble with the sex charge against him is that objectively it is purely her word against his word.  The story here does not mention any witnesses.  The story does not suggest that witnesses were sought.  A crowded venue?  Did UO even look for witnesses who saw the two together?

Some will say that the female should be believed - always, and that it is anti-woman to even consider whether she might not be telling the whole story.  This is not consistent with core American philosophy.  We as a people also need to think whether actions that leave zero detectable consequence are as serious as we make them.

I hope he wins several  million unless significant transgressions can be proven.

Ex Output:

Yes