Instructions: 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.
Input: Comment: "Overall, though, Mr. Scheer's direction is still mysterious."

By appointing Pierre Poilievre to a major position as the finance critic, the direction of the Con's/Scheer's party is not "mysterious" it is for all intents and purposes a sinking "direction", void of all reason, logic and intelligence.

The Cons, have pulled some REALLY strange/weird/egregious BULL in the nine years under Emperor Harper, but NEVER did they sink as low as appointing an id$ot of mammoth proportions (that would be Pierre Poilievre) to as important position as finance.

Jim Flaherty was a good man as well as an astute Finance Minister, Joe Oliver was/is an id4ot, yet he does have a background in in Finance.(for whatever that was worth)

Poilievre does not have this knowledge/education and he certainly does NOT have the intelligence, the man is a simpleton/id$ot. Period
Output:
Non-sexual-explicit