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: BUT!    These kids can tell you all about sexual intercourse, the name of all of the body parts, what oral sex is, and that 2 mommies and 2 daddies is normal, not to forget the world needs them to save it.....and that Trudeau is awesome and Harper was bad.   This is what happens when social engineering trumps basic school subjects.
[A]: Sexual-explicit


[Q]: Comment: No, but when he called the Pharisees white sceplechurs doing things for show, he certainly was. You are taking their side. I am not endorsing sin, but I am saying it is not a device for social control that the reactionaries want it to be. By the way, the shame culture mostly going away in the Church is why so many stopped going to Mass. They no longer felt compelled by a necessitary to have a belief in the belief in God. Put another way, if you had a young person in your life who really did not believe in God, would you insist they go to Communion or even Mass (especially if they would do Communion if they attended)? The answer is they can stop going because they are Apostate and then, and pretty much only then, would their receiving be a sacralidge. Had they masturbated? Not so much.
[A]: Sexual-explicit


[Q]: Comment: Was the term 'White Monopoly Capital' ever used before Bell Pottinger came on the scene and at huge cost?

If it does come from them, then surely that is interference by a 'foreign agent', almost mercenary in their activities! Loathesome company!
[A]:
Non-sexual-explicit