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.

Example Input: Comment: This article is somewhere between deceptive and fraudulent.
1)The first step in suing the state or any other entity is the FILING of the COMPLAINT and SERVING the defendant the COMPLAINT. The state says they have not been served the complaint. Therefore at this time no complaint has been filed.
The truth is, at best, is that the plaintiff is PREPARING to sue the state and I hardly find this to be any way news worthy! Seriously WTF?
Example Output: Non-sexual-explicit

Example Input: Comment: I agree that cars are an expensive luxury and I say that after more than 25 years of fixing them. I watched far too many people scrimping to make ends meet just so they can have a car. But, we will need that luxury until the day that public transit can get us anywhere in Toronto in under an hour. And that has to be available 24/7 because people simply don't roll over and play dead after they get home.

The argument is that the tolls will be used for transit and I am willing to say that is an outright lie. The tolls will be used for whatever idiotic project the half wits we have on City Council dream up, not for transit. Its a money grab, pure and simple.

This city allowed construction of a massive condo project down town in the rail yards area with absolutely no provision for schools, health care or transit. And people expect these idiots to do any better? Really? This is the same City who can not ever bring a project in on time or within budget. Good luck on this.
Example Output: Non-sexual-explicit

Example Input: Comment: Rik... man, you really have a stick up your arse don't you? First off, the dams were ancient, and unless you wanted to spend millions more to repair them only to repair them again in another few years, it was best to take them down. Add in the increased cost of maintenance, and it would be prohibitive.

Second, the habitat gained by removal has, amazing as it might seem to you, been used by salmon, and used quite extensively. In fact, not only have they traveled deep into the park, but they have spawned, quite successfully in fact, throughout the river and tributaries opened up by dam removal. Salmon, as it turns out, are a very real source of income for thousands of fisherman across the state, and up in Alaska...

Third, the fix you suggest for US 101 is absurd, and a hell of a lot more expensive and potentially dangerous than building a new bridge. Maybe you don't realize how much rock would have to be moved, but it would be prohibitive and destabilizing to the hillside.
Example Output:
Sexual-explicit