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: Now, here's a few problems with what you wrote.
You assume men have higher sex drives. They don't nor ever had, otherwise the pill wouldn't have made a difference, if men wanted it more and that's what gave women power over men then they'd still have that power. Somehow they don't. And yet it seems sex wasn't the power they held, weirdly enough we hear a lot about past "shotgun weddings", let me tell you something poor women worked, dad was liable to fund them until they married and yet there was were shotgun weddings concentrated.
And yet a lot of wedlock kids happened with kids who still saw their daddies and were directly supported by them but mom wanted nothing with dad. So it seems women were still fucking for the reason they always fucked, fucking itself. Women lined up the docks for the same reasons girls line up the sports block, to see hot men who are there to work not please them sexually.

A: Sexual-explicit
****
Q: Comment: "Arson in the second degree 
164.315 
 A person commits the crime of arson in the second degree if:

By knowingly engaging in the manufacture of methamphetamine, the person causes fire or causes an explosion that damages ...Any property of another and the damages to the property exceed $750"

I think we need to add 'hash oil manufacturing' to this Oregon statute.   Too many stoned idiots are out there playing  chemist.

A: Non-sexual-explicit
****
Q: Comment: Does everyone get to say, " To hell with the law!  See something, Slay something"?

A:
Non-sexual-explicit
****