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 Input:
Comment: Oh yes, Arliss Sturgulewski.  Born Jane Wright, but I guess no one would remember that name as opposed to Arliss Sturgulewski.  Anyway, I digress.  Joe Vogler's halfway respectable showing in 1986 had much to do with Sturgulewski making it clear that she wanted nothing to do with anyone who supported any of her primary opponents.  Here in Fairbanks, the few supporters she had in 1990 were the same little coffee klatsch of liberal Republicans who would meet regularly to plot against the rest of the party.  Incidentally, one of that group wound up in Parnell's cabinet, but I likewise digress.  That same group later brought us the equally-as-disastrous choice of Jim Campbell.

Ex Output:
Non-sexual-explicit


Ex Input:
Comment: Well, now, up until the last sentence I was willing to consider your point of view.  But you had to inject a racist comment, and that invalidated your entire post as far as I'm concerned. Yes, people who denigrate whites are just as racist as those who commit racial slurs against blacks or Latinos or other people of color.  It is apparent that you don't like whites in Langley ("that is a shame").  So, Mstraub, to you I say:  suck it up, cupcake and soldier on, we're here to stay.

Ex Output:
Non-sexual-explicit


Ex Input:
Comment: "Whenever I out on the roadways, I am in a Suburban or a Mercedes."
Wouldn't you and your wife be happier if you just got a penile implant?

Ex Output:

Sexual-explicit