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

Input: Consider Input: maybe people hanging out in the woods and sitting on benches all day should get off their buttskis and do something. has that crossed your mind.

Output: Yes


Input: Consider Input: This 20 page opinion is a real example of legal hair splitting.  The Supreme Court  acknowledges that libel is actionable per se (without money damage or special harm) if false information is published in a written form (like this site).  They then wander off to the Supreme Court and 9th Circuit opinions and decide that in spite of all that, basically that “two-faced,” “crooked” and “rude.” were not 'provably false' and based on all the facts and circumstances, protected by the 1st Amendment, in the facts of  this case.  This is going to make such lawsuits even more unpredictable than they already were, in my opinion.

Output: No


Input: Consider Input: "cost would be minimal in the scheme of things"  If you sell your car and you only get 2 per cent more than it is worth;  (Worth $1,000 and you get $1,020)  and you have to pay  2.5% tax on the sale that means you have to pay $1,025.  So you now have to pay more than your profit was.  Multiply that so the $1,000 is really $1 million dollars of a small construction project, and you might understand the effect of this tax.  ($20,000 profit; $25,000 tax.  Knife River will have to pay $5,000 more than you actually made.)


Output: Yes