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: Jill: Just another note.....the rather infamous incident you reference involved a "he said, she said" sexual assault?/consensual sex? incident involving a young lady and three (now ex-) basketball players.  We could spend hours debating the incident.  However, in all fairness, you should refer to "allegedly GANG RAPED".  I spoke out at the time, and will repeat, the Administation's actions were deplorable and violated every standard for patient/therapist confidentiality.  I very much agree that the U of O has a very self-serving "flexible" standard of privacy.  It's cost them a great deal of money in the past and will cost them a great deal more unless they develop and honor a decent standard of privacy.  regards, Gary Crum
[EX A]: Sexual-explicit

[EX Q]: Comment: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
[EX A]: Non-sexual-explicit

[EX Q]: Comment: Yes, as so far as it is about sex and power. The abuse of sex. The abuse of power.
And it is so with both the sick perverted clerics who abused the power of their position, abused sex itself, and worst of all abused children AND the facilitators, enablers, managers, deniers, obfuscators, resisters. 
Your persistent homophobic assertions are wrong, harmful and "objectively" sinful. You may be right that there were elements of "protection of a network of exploiters". However, there is absolutely no truth whatsoever that it was not a further abuse (of sex and authority) in protecting position and the money and the status of "church" by sacrificing children.
[EX A]:
Sexual-explicit