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

Input: Consider Input: I don't know anything about the job she did for the Mat-Su beyond what the article states. But yes, congrats Deena Paramo on beating out 80+ others and good luck in your new position.

Output: No


Input: Consider Input: I don't mind the empty chair per se, but if Clint Eastwood finds it . . .

Output: Yes


Input: Consider Input: Regarding your Fred Stewart story, you need to ask yourself how certain you are before you print a story that absolutely destroys the candidacy of someone who has served his community well.   Do you really know Fred's relationship with his ex-wife -- no you don't.   Do you know if she is telling the truth when you quote her -- no you don't.   Does this one incident of disagreement and physical confrontation with his daughter disqualify Fred?   Is there more to the story -- a young woman stuck between a feuding Mother and Father and choosing her Mother -- in a not so surprising situation?  Is the Grant High School student's story reflective of the whole context and therefore should be used.   As someone who has edited hundreds of WW stories, I would say that this is tabloid journalism at its worst.   
If I were Terry Bean, Jordan Schnitzer, Jefferson Smith, Eileen Brady, or Fred Stewart, I would be thinking about the private lives and motivations of Mark Zusman and Nigel Jaquiss.


Output: No