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: Now, here's a few problems with what you wrote.
You assume men have higher sex drives. They don't nor ever had, otherwise the pill wouldn't have made a difference, if men wanted it more and that's what gave women power over men then they'd still have that power. Somehow they don't. And yet it seems sex wasn't the power they held, weirdly enough we hear a lot about past "shotgun weddings", let me tell you something poor women worked, dad was liable to fund them until they married and yet there was were shotgun weddings concentrated.
And yet a lot of wedlock kids happened with kids who still saw their daddies and were directly supported by them but mom wanted nothing with dad. So it seems women were still fucking for the reason they always fucked, fucking itself. Women lined up the docks for the same reasons girls line up the sports block, to see hot men who are there to work not please them sexually.
[A]: Sexual-explicit


[Q]: Comment: Dick the butcher had it right: "The first thing we'll do, let's kill all the lawyers." How I wish. JZ wouldn't know a 'mala fide' action if it jumped up and bit him on the bum. These so called legal advisers are nothing more than merdivorous bottom feeders. Come the glorious day, let's have these traitors up against the wall!
[A]: Sexual-explicit


[Q]: Comment: Really? So what you're saying is you're okay with the Trumpster being a completely inept, pathological liar because you think Clinton is as well? Do you not understand how stupid that line of reasoning is?
[A]:
Non-sexual-explicit