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: He does not say that the Paris agreement says what you say it says - he says that the result of the agreement is that China goes on polluting until 2030 and that sucker nations , such as Canada, go on paying into the Global Environmental fund; but enjoy your ignorance whilst it lasts.
[EX A]: Non-sexual-explicit

[EX Q]: Comment: Sucking POTUS as$ doesn't make you right.
[EX A]: Sexual-explicit

[EX Q]: Comment: Rik... man, you really have a stick up your arse don't you? First off, the dams were ancient, and unless you wanted to spend millions more to repair them only to repair them again in another few years, it was best to take them down. Add in the increased cost of maintenance, and it would be prohibitive. 

Second, the habitat gained by removal has, amazing as it might seem to you, been used by salmon, and used quite extensively. In fact, not only have they traveled deep into the park, but they have spawned, quite successfully in fact, throughout the river and tributaries opened up by dam removal. Salmon, as it turns out, are a very real source of income for thousands of fisherman across the state, and up in Alaska...  

Third, the fix you suggest for US 101 is absurd, and a hell of a lot more expensive and potentially dangerous than building a new bridge. Maybe you don't realize how much rock would have to be moved, but it would be prohibitive and destabilizing to the hillside.
[EX A]:
Sexual-explicit