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.

Example Input: Comment: Hey pretty boi -- get on your knees and give her a good arse licking
Example Output: Sexual-explicit

Example Input: Comment: Kinda tough for a one-leg wrong-winger to get into an ass kicking contest isn't it Chance?
Example Output: Sexual-explicit

Example Input: Comment: <<Isn’t it behavior — not self-perception — that objectively defines one’s sexual orientation?>>

Absolutely not. Your quotation from John Jay (JJ) correctly asserts the exact opposite. Think about the prevalence of gay rape among straight prisoners. "Opportunity" is important.

Null, it is critical to distinguish pedophilia from ephebophilia among clerical abusers. We now know pedophilia is intractable, but ephebophilia behavior is more complex. Most non-pedophile sexual abusers, whether gay or straight, are best understood as sexually immature, sexually confused, sexually repressed, with "opportunity" for young boys. 

It is not homosexuality or heterosexuality that correlates, IMHO, with the selection of illegal targets, but immaturity, etc. 

BTW, I was unaware JJ estimated 5% to 50% gay clergy. IMHO, globally the correct figure today is minimally 50%, and perhaps as high as 75%. Reliable data is virtually impossible given the ongoing preference for the closet among priests.
Example Output:
Sexual-explicit