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: RadirD, Kim Jung Un and the DPRK regime threaten us all the time.  Why would Trump or any other rational person use that as a line in the sand?  It took them a few hours after his asinine statement to threaten us yet again.  Foolish.

The only person who yells out "I'm going to punch you in the face!" is a coward who doesn't actually want a fistfight (like Kim Jong Un).  A serious person would just slam you in the kisser without warning.

Don't get me wrong, the DPRK is a growing and serious threat and there may not be a way out of a conflict at this point.  They have been seriously mishandled and underestimated by every president (both GOP and Dems) since the Korean war.

A: Non-sexual-explicit
****
Q: Comment: "Half-sweet, half-decaf vanilla bean latte with soy milk, extra hot, no foam."

I have often wanted to kick this type of person in the balls.

A: Sexual-explicit
****
Q: Comment: The "woman " is seen as the danger to the celibate .  Some bishop even expressed  his relief that one of his priests had sexually assaulted a boy saying that at least it had not been a woman  . 
Boys are young , vulnerable and available .

A:
Sexual-explicit
****