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 Q]: Comment: Yes, the VAGINA negates everything, unless it's being used for making more rethuglican rugrats, pleasure, or, on rare occasion, shooting Ping Pong balls.

At least that's how the GOP view women.
[EX A]: Sexual-explicit

[EX Q]: Comment: NATO can only postulate when it comes to non-existent "threat" from Russia. They don't want to do anything to fight the real threat of terrorism. Hey, France, how about cleaning up the mess you made in Libya?
[EX A]: Non-sexual-explicit

[EX Q]: Comment: You're right, Marcus. There isn't one single good idea anywhere. Better to clench your butt, squeeze your eyes shut tight and just hope. That oughtta "build a denser city with more places to live". Yup, give up on any idea of a liveable city. We don't need parkland. We don't need the traffic lanes and bike lanes that the builders block for months or years at a time with their cranes and trucks. Etc. 

Just let business do their thing.

And by the way, the OMB only protects business interests. Why shouldn't a city be able to implement a strategy for, again, "building a denser city with more places to live"? But on a scale and in a manner that the people, as represented by the gov't they elect, want? You know, democratically...
[EX A]:
Sexual-explicit