Categorize the comment on the basis of sexual explicitness. If the comment is sexually explicit output Yes, otherwise output No.

Example Input: I have to say I'm a little sorry to see Christie go. At least he called out Marco "Robo" Rubio before quitting the race; that was a fun moment (for everyone but Rubio).
Example Output: No

Example Input: -"Welfare by any other name" - Actually it was originally both a strategic, politically "do-able" income equalization plan, to share oil wealth COMING FROM TRADITIONAL ALASKA NATIVE LANDS with all Alaskans, instead of "pissing it away", & seeing ALL of it go to the politically connected for whatever they wanted - and it has worked fairly well.. But the oil boom is over - - We need to reconfigure what & how we do services as a State:
  ***We need to maximize Permanent Fund earnings & help fund government with earnings interest;  ***We must wisely control budgets for outcome effectiveness, & avoid "iffy" capital spending; ***We must once again begin taxing ourselves with a 1.5% of gross income tax, and cut PFD cash payments & *** We must gradually move toward eliminating them as we reconfigure government services for residents - Our own "sovereign wealth" approach to providing resident services - similar to that being taken by Norway & Saudi Arabia. This is a time of opportunity!
Example Output: No

Example Input: This article mentions "Tobacco", not vaping, cloves or duh da duh marijuana.  But seriously, from a non smoker, why can't our keepers designate areas for smokers, why is that so tough?  I have personally been more offended by pot smoke, loose dogs and badly throw baseballs and frisbees than from tobacco smoke.
Example Output:
No