TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Comment: A well articulated opinion. Sadly, Ms Wente grossly underestimates the power of the vast hordes of broader public sector employees and their Unions to mobilize the vote for whoever is promising the status quo for them. So long as they are kept in the lap of luxury, with all the attendant 5-star perks that others can only dream of, no party preaching fiscal restraint can ever win. Exactly what Justin did, promising to spend more.
For all of Trumps darker sides, his pro economy pro business model is slowly starting to appeal to voters of all stripes, except perhaps the extreme socialists. It would be nice of other mature economies can emulate Trumponomics minus the unpleasant elements like anti trade, anti [legal] immigrant policies.

SOLUTION: Non-sexual-explicit

PROBLEM: Comment: Sex, when done right, IS making love. It is employing our sexuality in order to give pleasure to our partner because we love him or her. It doesn't have to be done in "missionary position." It doesn't have to include intercourse or consummation. It doesn't have to mean placing part A into receptacle B.  Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't. The intent should always be to give to the beloved through sexual expression. 

Sex  is certainly not the only way to show love, nor is "making love" the only way to have sex, and I am not saying that all instances of "having sex" are inspired by love.  People can use each other, people can have sex thinking only of their own pleasure, people can abuse or rape. Those are perversions. Anal intercourse or oral sex are not perversions as long as both partners are willing and enjoy it. 

The ideal, however, is that sexual activity be between two monogamous people who love each other. Then it is indeed "making love."

SOLUTION: Sexual-explicit

PROBLEM: Comment: Clinton's sexual transgressions  with his employees and subordinates is no different than O'Reilly's.  And they didn't hurt his ability to get paid to make speeches which was what I posted that O'Reilly will probably do. 

Although Bill only paid Paula Jones $850,000 to settle her lawsuit.  

Of course, adjusted for inflation, maybe his payoff to Paula is consistent with the ones made by O'Reilly.

They are both male sleaze balls; only their politics differ.  Well, and the fact that one of them is a life-long politician, and the other isn't.

SOLUTION:
Sexual-explicit