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.

[Q]: Comment: Go suck his d!ck.
[A]: Sexual-explicit


[Q]: Comment: The author quotes a professor who states  "police reluctance to work with feminist legal groups mirrors a sentiment common to employees of any company.'   Several years ago, I attended a complaint of sexual assault where a woman called to report she had been sexually assaulted at a party.  When I got to her home, she was accompanied by a local Rape Relief representative.  As I spoke to the woman, I was continually interrupted by the Rape Relief rep, to the extent that I asked her to leave the room.  It turned out that the sex was consensual, and that the woman was actually intent on a guilt/revenge thing.  What actually happened is that following a fight with her boyfriend, she stormed off, went to the party, got drunk and had sex.  Upon returning home, she said "look what happened to me," and then reported it as a rape at the urging of her beau.   Unfounded!!!!! 
 I also told the Rape Relief worker to go ahead and complain.  She never did.
[A]: Sexual-explicit


[Q]: Comment: "When will this charade end? What, this jerk is going to have his wages garnished? Forever?"

Oh, it gets even better.  Recently, there was a story of someone who was "ordered" to pay a large amount while granting ridiculously small payments.  Some years go by and only a fraction of it got paid WITH the explanation of "the order" expiring BECAUSE the entity owed wasn't granted a "judgment" for the amount, which is good for 10 years and renewable for another 10.  

Oh, and the order they said was expired?  In reality, it wasn't because the statute says a debt expires six years from the date of last payment yet the State wasn't bright enough to know that so they just said it was expired.
[A]:
Non-sexual-explicit