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.

[EX Q]: Comment: Yeah but the beer they were hauling sucks......Rocky Mountain my arse!
[EX A]: Sexual-explicit

[EX Q]: Comment: In the US system, the president has the authority to fill over 4700 positions.  As a president who campaigned on the GOP ticket and as a conservative, he will appoint a considerable number of conservatives.  But unlike here where the PM is constrained by having to choose from a small number of MPs and having to give consideration to racial and regional representations and now, stupidly, having to also choose 50% women and 50% men, the US president can actually choose from the best qualified people to fill specific cabinet - and other -roles regardless of their ideology.   

On Sunday, in front of millions of viewers of 60 Minutes, the Trump children were asked if they would serve in their father's administration.  They all said no, they would concentrate on running the Trump business empire.   

Sorry if conservative appointments offend you and Judith M. so but this is what voters in THE ELECTION (as opposed to the liberal mob rule in the streets) voted for.   

Remain calm.
[EX A]: Non-sexual-explicit

[EX Q]: Comment: That's when reasonable doubt enters. The accused had woman's DNA on his mouth. So we know that by the time the officer arrived he kissed her, or had oral sex with her. You could say that she passed out when he was doing this to her. Do you reasonably believe that? I don't. The policewoman didn't (she arrested him). It looks like the judge did.
[EX A]:
Sexual-explicit