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.

Comment: Attention Oregonians:  Senator Ron Wyden,  a UofO law school grad,  failed the Oregon bar exam three times,  and has never been able to practice before the bar.  So when he pontificates  (or would that be rabbinicalates?)  that Trump Jr. talked to the Russian lawyer soliciting buyers for information she evidently did not have,  he was NOT colluding with anyone about anything.  A shill in a skirt did a fan dance with some legal papers,  conned her way to an interview,  was listened to until it was determined that she was barking up the wrong tree about the wrong stuff, and was politely excused.  

Now,  was there dirt on Hillary Clinton?  Who would know?  Would dirt be useful in a political campaign?  You betcha!   Would the DNC solicit dirt on any Republican candidate?  Damned straight they would!!  Is that all "politics as usual?"  yep.  The American Way.   Happens daily.  The DNC is dredging for damaging information on any sitting Republican today, yesterday, and will be tomorrow.
Non-sexual-explicit

Comment: You don't have a strong erection? Bummer for you. Try not drinking alcohol and exercise.
Sexual-explicit

Comment: Another PR spin. Taking pictures of the Potus holding and pretending to help black people doesn't mean a thing to the people who are aware of this sham. How many pictures were there again? Any pictures holding or helping white victims? How about any hispanics or asians? No, none... Let's just say you're not the first to try this tactic. Look at the lack of attention for the little boy in the flash T-shirt. How sad. The Potus and his PR team's agenda has been exposed.

Non-sexual-explicit