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: Oh yes, Arliss Sturgulewski.  Born Jane Wright, but I guess no one would remember that name as opposed to Arliss Sturgulewski.  Anyway, I digress.  Joe Vogler's halfway respectable showing in 1986 had much to do with Sturgulewski making it clear that she wanted nothing to do with anyone who supported any of her primary opponents.  Here in Fairbanks, the few supporters she had in 1990 were the same little coffee klatsch of liberal Republicans who would meet regularly to plot against the rest of the party.  Incidentally, one of that group wound up in Parnell's cabinet, but I likewise digress.  That same group later brought us the equally-as-disastrous choice of Jim Campbell.
Example Output: Non-sexual-explicit

Example Input: Comment: More crap by leftists who only want their "approved" opinions aired.  All others are of course racists and bigots and hate speech.  Not how this country works sweetie.  And by the way, it wasn't a girl the article was about - a girl has a vagina - not a penis and testicles.  Maybe you need to educate yourself a bit more.
Example Output: Sexual-explicit

Example Input: Comment: Gingrich, Pawns?? are you reading the same article I am? And regarding " not running" how about Mark is a human being , why can't that be a reason to not trash him ?
Example Output:
Non-sexual-explicit