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

Example Input: I agree. There's no way to dismiss the predatory nature of an adult - any adult - having sex with a minor. In this case she was 43, he 17?? No excuse.
Example Output: Yes

Example Input: The termination of a public employee is a "personnel" matter, not a "personal" matter.  Such incidents are not open to the public unless the person terminated wishes to have his/her personnel materials partially or fully disclosed.  So the "we can't talk about it" answer, while frustrating, is correct.  If the incident "played out" as this article describes, I, for one, see no justification for Mr. Roberts' termination.  Other reasons?  You will NOT hear them unless, like Principal Lange in Springfield, Mr. Roberts chooses to have the information made public.

I know nothing of those possible "other reasons."  I do know that, to my knowledge, Mr. Roberts has been a competent, trustworthy public employee.  He's "crossed swords" with the Board of Directors of , at least, oneother entity and been, essentially, terminated because of it.  That doesn't mean he was "wrong" then, and it doesn't mean he's "wrong" now.  The third-party investigation he suggested seems a good idea.......
Example Output: No

Example Input: That sucking sound pulling the Alaskan congressional trio into the abyss is the misguided belief that racism is alive and well.   First, they ignore the Constitution which is sedition with a small s and then all lock step with a dangerous narcissist.   Hoping they get caught up in the grinder that kicks them all out of office.
Example Output:
Yes