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: One thing for sure - it's going to be extremely funny watching the BC NDP suck and blow at the same time on this one.
[A]: Sexual-explicit


[Q]: Comment: As Frazer said "How can a man complain about being sexually assaulted? Sex is what we want. And if it is just handed to us on a silver platter , so much the better".
[A]: Sexual-explicit


[Q]: Comment: "It gives the message that the primary purpose of marriage is sexual satisfaction..."  Wrong.  Such a judgmental statement is in ignorance of how anyone and everyone chooses to marry: it is out of love, and one way that love is expressed is through the intimacy of sexual union.  Terms like "Divine Will" and "attempts to overturn the long-held Judeo-Christian concepts of marriage..." are smokescreens for the oppression of others.  The concept of marriage changes a number of times before Jesus was born, so which "long held" concepts are you referring to?  And is not the Church's traditional view of marriage as being for procreation?  That involves having sex, does it not?  So, once again, you reveal for us quite well the inconsistent, and discriminating position of the Church in its outmoded and self-serving approach to marriage, to partnership, and to love and union.  We've heard it all before, and it still makes little sense, just like celibacy and creeping infallibility.
[A]:
Sexual-explicit