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 Input:
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.

Ex Output:
Sexual-explicit

Ex Input:
Comment: I don't think it bothers him in the least. The only thing worse than being a sore loser like you would be a sore winner. I'm sure Torque is quite happy to be in the position that he is. Clinton was a weak candidate, and the electoral college did exactly what it was created to do. If only you lefties hadn't sold out Bernie, he probably would have won. hahaha

Ex Output:
Non-sexual-explicit

Ex Input:
Comment: If two thirds of Canadians do indeed support climate change action (questionable), and if it is a question of how carbon pricing is implemented rather than if (again not fully convinced), then the best proposed plan so far is Michael Chong's national revenue neutral carbon tax.

Chong's proposal is similar to the BC model, but it is initially revenue negative as large income and corporate tax cuts come first and the carbon price rises in a gradual predictable manner. In turn a significant amount of government overhead on green funding programs is eliminated, so that markets are left to come up with solutions given the tax signals.

Trudeau's approach layers carbon tax on top of existing green programs, and of course his additional intervention and spending. Don't be fooled when he says revenue neutral, as 3 of 4 provinces (so far) have opted for a tax grab.

Chong is a long shot in the CPC race. I'd rather have no carbon tax than a poorly designed one like the Trudeau 'plan'.

Ex Output:
Non-sexual-explicit