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

Q: The article says "crossing his property".  His stupid behavior presumably impacted other property owners.  I agree that money shouldn't be wasted on silly prosecutions, but this guy should get pounded for stopping the firefighters; especially if he added to the danger they were under.  Unfortunately, the charge was only a misdemeanor, and as such, probably wasn't worth the $$ or bother.

A: Yes
****
Q: Bernie Sanders supports the F-35 because there are 3 suppliers in his state with a total of $128.8 million in supply contracts related to construction of the F-35.  Lockheed Martin has been very careful to spread the economic windfall around to as many congressional districts as possible.  18 states have supply contracts of over 100 million, and only 4 States (including Alaska) have no supply contracts at all - so the Pentagon has to roll us into the fold with F-35 basing plans.  These geographically diversified supply contracts have to be the most uneconomical model possible, but it greases all the right palms so that congress will never cut it no matter how much of a boondoggle it is.

A: No
****
Q: Words are important. They influence how we think about the world. The media really need to update the style sheet. "Gunman", "gunviolence"... are these really accurate descriptors, or are they designed to blame the gun instead of the man? What should we call a man who kills and injures 60 people? What is the word that would get tot the horror or violence of this? Is "gunman" really the best we can do? Or is it an attempt from the very beginning of coverage to tar the gun along with the man?

A:
No
****