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.

Input: Consider Input: Comment: So you sidestep the issue by changing the subject to the definition of "Church," then you suggest we drop the discussion.  Let me just finish, then, by saying that anal penetration is not an act of love.

Output: Sexual-explicit


Input: Consider Input: Comment: What's the 'legislature' going to do?  Appropriate money for, yet, another study to 'see if a giant net can be made to catch the nuke before she goes off'?.......The only real plan is to bend over as far as you can and kiss your arse goodbye!

Output: Sexual-explicit


Input: Consider Input: Comment: Another Globe & Mail article says "A routine request for ID papers outside a deserted train station in a Milan suburb at 3 a.m. Friday led to a police shootout that killed the Tunisian fugitive wanted in the deadly Christmas market attack in Berlin".

It seems the Italian police in Milan stopped the Tunisian terrorist Amri in a routine check. That sounds similar to the carding in Toronto where police were stopping people to ask questions but Canadians protested against that.

Canada isn't immune from Muslim terrorist attacks. We've had them before.

I wonder if we will need that sort of police checking in Canada the future.

Maybe Mississauga should keep it up just in case.

And Conservatives says  if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.


Output: Non-sexual-explicit