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: Mr. Harris, LIAR, LIAR, Pants on Fire....................

Output: Non-sexual-explicit


Input: Consider Input: Comment: Cosby gives Blacks a bad name, no? After reading so many techniques he used with his star celebrity status, he is the BEST rapist I have ever heard of. Wonder if someone will write a crime story about him when more facts come out in the trial. It's going to be a challenger to the OJ Simpson trial. Please do hurry up and start it. I don't want him or I to die of old age too soon. It's going to be a fascinating trial. What I'm curious about are these questions. Were these women given monetary gifts afterwards? Were they looking forward to an adventure of being "raped" by a black man, especially a Hollywood celebrity? But were angry that they fell asleep and missed the fun? Why did they continue to stay if they realized they entered a room full of only well-dressed black men? Were these victims angry because they gave sex thinking they were going to get glamour or well-paying jobs? Prepare yourselves. He may just get ACQUITTED.

Output: Sexual-explicit


Input: Consider Input: Comment: "Overall, though, Mr. Scheer's direction is still mysterious."

By appointing Pierre Poilievre  to a major position as the finance critic, the direction of the Con's/Scheer's party is not "mysterious" it is for all intents and purposes a sinking "direction", void of all reason, logic and intelligence.

The Cons, have pulled some REALLY strange/weird/egregious BULL in the nine years under Emperor Harper, but NEVER did they sink as low as appointing an id$ot of mammoth proportions (that would be Pierre Poilievre) to as important position as finance.

Jim Flaherty was a good man as well as an astute Finance Minister, Joe Oliver was/is an id4ot, yet he does have a background in in Finance.(for whatever that was worth)

Poilievre does not have this knowledge/education and he certainly does NOT have the  intelligence, the man is a simpleton/id$ot. Period


Output: Non-sexual-explicit