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: Wow! If you think this article represents "common sense truth seeking" you really need to go back to the drawing board. This woman is a dishonest extremist who trades in propagandist lies.

A: Non-sexual-explicit
****
Q: Comment: Wow!  Never fails any issue that touches on sex brings out the masses.
In a sense, should as sex is the center of life.
The RCC persists that "every sperm is sacred." 
Hence, because gay people will not deposit it in the proper receptacle they will always be lepers in the RCC.
That's why masturbation remains a mortal sin in the RCC.
Who can calculate the number of mortal sins committed daily?
Beyond Einstein!
But some here would say god is counting!

A: Sexual-explicit
****
Q: Comment: You mean that just because he dodged the draft, said his favorite book was the Bible without being able to quote a single verse, is cutting 23 million people off health care, charged tens of millions in "tuition" for a bogus "university" that conned his supporters, vowed to deport 11 million people, including millions of parents of American children, employed a bodyguard to beat up peaceful protesters, plans to compile a list of adherents of a particular faith, offered $10,000 and the use of his jet to a porn star for some "company," deliberately walked in on naked teenagers about to participate in a pageant, intends to defund Planned Parenthood which prevents millions of abortions by providing affordable family planning, has killed civilians including an 8-year-old American girl in Yemen, said his "Vietnam" was being worried about catching an STD, advocated grabbing women by their genitals, and whose first of three wives accused him of rape, that evangelicals shouldn't support him?

A:
Sexual-explicit
****