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.

Example Input: Comment: If you can't spell the word 'appetizing' correctly, you can't claim to have gourmet taste.  Soul food is for the hard workers, the country kin, and people who don't need their ass kissed by a waitress.
Example Output: Sexual-explicit

Example Input: Comment: They know a sucker when they see one.
Example Output: Non-sexual-explicit

Example Input: Comment: What about attacks against Jews?  Sikhs?  Don't those deserve mention also?  This motion is emotional and poorly worded.  By singling out one religious group for special mention, it defeats the purpose of non-discrimination that it's supposedly intended to serve.  

While I can appreciate the emotions this MP Khalid must feel with the tragic crime in Quebec, this will only serve to cause the exact opposite of what she's looking for - it creates non-equality by elevating discrimination against one religious group above all others and will cause resentment at Muslims seeking to advance their causes above all others.  A motion on equality and non-discrimination should reflect that in the very nature of it's wording.  This one fails miserably and the motion being put forward by MP David Anderson - “all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination,” should address Muslims equally with other religions and that should be what MP Khalid's goal is.  That question is left hanging.
Example Output:
Non-sexual-explicit