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: You know nothing about vegans or vegetarians, then you go and lump them into the SAME category as "food fetishists"!  Like those young men in the Book of Daniel, yes?

A: Non-sexual-explicit
****
Q: Comment: During the day I believe he went to prospective houses where he hoped to harm individuals, knocking on doors during the day where he asked for work.  He is an admitted liar.  He is manipulative producing his penciled writing.  It may be the cover story.  He is definitely a thug perhaps for political purposes.  He may not be who he presents himself at all.  He may just be an operative of some type perhaps a paid assassin.  How would you like him showing up at your door with your family there - while you are at work.  He may have.  Not buying his penciled story.  He is an admitted liar among other qualities.  He no doubt has his admirers and cohorts in various interests.  The one's he and his associates have not "mentioned".  Gullible reporting?  What's his military record?  I don't believe his story.  He is a bad character for sure.

A: Non-sexual-explicit
****
Q: Comment: Here is another one that doesn't care to check data or present proof. Isn't it time we demand from these charlatans the good-old obligation of no lying?

A:
Non-sexual-explicit
****