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.

[Q]: Comment: No, but when he called the Pharisees white sceplechurs doing things for show, he certainly was. You are taking their side. I am not endorsing sin, but I am saying it is not a device for social control that the reactionaries want it to be. By the way, the shame culture mostly going away in the Church is why so many stopped going to Mass. They no longer felt compelled by a necessitary to have a belief in the belief in God. Put another way, if you had a young person in your life who really did not believe in God, would you insist they go to Communion or even Mass (especially if they would do Communion if they attended)? The answer is they can stop going because they are Apostate and then, and pretty much only then, would their receiving be a sacralidge. Had they masturbated? Not so much.
[A]: Sexual-explicit


[Q]: Comment: Zuma fires competent ministers but retains incompetenet lying ministers such as Dlamini. She should be fired as a minister and taken out of Parliament, as she makes a mockery of the institution. One wonders why she is allowed to act as she does-unilaterally. The other question that should be asked is whether she has paid the court costs and show proof that the payment was out of her own pocket
[A]: Non-sexual-explicit


[Q]: Comment: then go to another law school that allows gay marital sex
problem solved
Trudeau calls it Diversity
[A]:
Sexual-explicit