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: Obviously the media wants us to vote for Hilary, their coverage is so slanted. And how did this get turned into Trump "forcing women into sex?"

Ex Output:
Sexual-explicit


Ex Input:
Comment: Right you are... he ended up not being charged, let alone convicted for Child Pornography. I stand corrected.

However - the first part of my comment stands. Had he engaged in an illegal discussion of any other flavor, the 15 year old would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The 15 year old in this case is not guilty of anything, but to pretend that in this very case she is a victim of a two-sided conversation when in any other case she would, indeed, be guilty for engaging in a conversation of an illegal nature, is nothing short of bizarre. This hypocrisy is worse than AW's creepiness.

I find this particular case nothing short of delicious, as it was AW who co-sponsored the “Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act,” a bill to require sex offenders to register their email addresses and instant-messaging accounts. The prosecutors said Mr. Weiner had, in public remarks, said “the internet is the predator’s venue of choice today.” 

Tru dat!

Ex Output:
Sexual-explicit


Ex Input:
Comment: If you think Trump isn't going to turn around and blow smoke up your ass the moment he's elected, you're being played.

Ex Output:

Sexual-explicit