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 Q]: Comment: how about this point....some children who were 'sexually abused' did not have a look of horror on their face at the time, but rather not only initiated it, but had a big smile on their face as their lives were being 'destroyed'.
[EX A]: Sexual-explicit

[EX Q]: Comment: Attention Oregonians:  Senator Ron Wyden,  a UofO law school grad,  failed the Oregon bar exam three times,  and has never been able to practice before the bar.  So when he pontificates  (or would that be rabbinicalates?)  that Trump Jr. talked to the Russian lawyer soliciting buyers for information she evidently did not have,  he was NOT colluding with anyone about anything.  A shill in a skirt did a fan dance with some legal papers,  conned her way to an interview,  was listened to until it was determined that she was barking up the wrong tree about the wrong stuff, and was politely excused.  

Now,  was there dirt on Hillary Clinton?  Who would know?  Would dirt be useful in a political campaign?  You betcha!   Would the DNC solicit dirt on any Republican candidate?  Damned straight they would!!  Is that all "politics as usual?"  yep.  The American Way.   Happens daily.  The DNC is dredging for damaging information on any sitting Republican today, yesterday, and will be tomorrow.
[EX A]: Non-sexual-explicit

[EX Q]: Comment: Um, no. I don't want an Amazon person in my house when I walk out of the shower, naked, and showing off my danglies.
[EX A]:
Sexual-explicit