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.

Example Input: Comment: Trudeau is so shallow and lacking in wisdom.
Example Output: Non-sexual-explicit

Example Input: Comment: During the day I believe he went to prospective houses where he hoped to harm individuals, knocking on doors during the day where he asked for work.  He is an admitted liar.  He is manipulative producing his penciled writing.  It may be the cover story.  He is definitely a thug perhaps for political purposes.  He may not be who he presents himself at all.  He may just be an operative of some type perhaps a paid assassin.  How would you like him showing up at your door with your family there - while you are at work.  He may have.  Not buying his penciled story.  He is an admitted liar among other qualities.  He no doubt has his admirers and cohorts in various interests.  The one's he and his associates have not "mentioned".  Gullible reporting?  What's his military record?  I don't believe his story.  He is a bad character for sure.
Example Output: Non-sexual-explicit

Example Input: Comment: I think to some extent that's a correct assessment of why Trump is pushing the voter fraud button, but I also think the alt right has more to gain in this ploy than salving Trump's ego.  The GOP has been claiming voter fraud for a very long time, about as soon as it became obvious that minorities would be in the ascendancy by the mid 21st century.  This was back in the 80's, and of course all the fraud always happens in Latino and Black areas......except when such a scenario might benefit the GOP, then it's just 'hanging chads'.
Example Output:
Non-sexual-explicit