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.

Ex Input:
Comment: Wow! There were two fake news ads on the site as a logged in...see it's about the money. Faux News makes money by ginning up the adrenal glands of viewers...the Jerry Springer of broadcasts. And even the name is fake 'cause it ain't news. When Drudge Report posts something fake and then Faux picks it up, and 'reporters' parrot as it now it's news? This is stupid journalism...like reporting each gush from the Twit in Chief as if this was news...it's at best a yawn. Of course journalism that uses the tweets by the twit to show how grossly unqualified just adds fuel...still not news. Journalism at it's best seeking the truth -- this is why we need intelligent opinions as the context is complex. But not all beliefs are news. Not all opinions deserve an airing. We need to shame those who foment fear and terror as what they are, terrorist recruiters. The nominee for national security advisor is one, as is his son. They almost caused the death of innocent people. Fake news undermines America.

Ex Output:
Non-sexual-explicit


Ex Input:
Comment: That’s because Logan and the rest of them literally don’t know what they’re talking about. Like Trump, they’ll be all “who knew criminal justice reform was this complicated?” And the authors of SB91 and of the research upon which it is based will say, “We did, dumb*#$$es.”

Ex Output:
Non-sexual-explicit


Ex Input:
Comment: Try and follow the discussion Meggsy. What I said was that the original poster had no evidence to support his contention that all gender washrooms would cause an increase in sexual asssults. Or an increase in syphilis. If you have data to support those allegations then bring it on. 

I absolutely did not say that sex asssults do not occur.

Ex Output:

Sexual-explicit