Categorize the comment on the basis of sexual explicitness. If the comment is sexually explicit output Yes, otherwise output No.

Ex Input:
YET ANOTHER BARACK OBAMA LIBERAL MEDIA CONSPIRACY BY THE THOUGHT CONTROL POLICE. I DIDENT SPEND 30 YEARS MIXING CONCRETE TO LET AMERICA FALL TO THE COMMIES. THE TAXES HERE ARE SO HIGH I CANT EVEN AFFORD A KEYBOARD WITH A WORKING CAPS LOCK. PORTLAND HAS BEEN GOING DOWNHILL FOR YEARS, NO WONDER THE TEA PARTY IS MAKING A COMEBACK. WHATS NEXT FLOURAIDE IN THE WATER SUPPLY?

Ex Output:
No

Ex Input:
if that birdie on the podium at sanders rally in portland had landed on trumps podium...? he would have tried to swat it, cursed it for pooping on the podium, all while dozens of his supporters pulling out their legal firearms and taking aim at the little birdie. ***yeah well, if elected, trump is no longer a "businessman" and the rules of law do apply. BTW - any politician can just blow off their past? "that's the way business gets transacted? " really? is that really your response? that is one dumb reply doc. just dumb. perhaps the dumbest, relevant comment I've seen. and yeah the trump horse and pony "show" may light the heavens in a way WE have yet to see , courtesy of every other insane world leader.

Ex Output:
No

Ex Input:
The article says "crossing his property". His stupid behavior presumably impacted other property owners. I agree that money shouldn't be wasted on silly prosecutions, but this guy should get pounded for stopping the firefighters; especially if he added to the danger they were under. Unfortunately, the charge was only a misdemeanor, and as such, probably wasn't worth the $$ or bother.

Ex Output:
Yes