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: That's right. Where are all those people who screamed about Hillary's emails now? What? All I hear is silence, the silence of lambs led to their slaughter. Their hero turns out to be just what we knew all along, a pussy-grabbing casting couch celebrity with absolutely zero concern for the average American. You asked for it, you got it (in the backside), Toyota.
Example Output: Sexual-explicit

Example Input: Comment: Oh yes, Arliss Sturgulewski. Born Jane Wright, but I guess no one would remember that name as opposed to Arliss Sturgulewski. Anyway, I digress. Joe Vogler's halfway respectable showing in 1986 had much to do with Sturgulewski making it clear that she wanted nothing to do with anyone who supported any of her primary opponents. Here in Fairbanks, the few supporters she had in 1990 were the same little coffee klatsch of liberal Republicans who would meet regularly to plot against the rest of the party. Incidentally, one of that group wound up in Parnell's cabinet, but I likewise digress. That same group later brought us the equally-as-disastrous choice of Jim Campbell.
Example Output: Non-sexual-explicit

Example Input: Comment: In Unalaska the library has computers and they are used constantly by the many refugees working in the fish plants. These people stay in touch with families in the home country or in refugee camps. I never once saw a person doing anything frivolous on a computer in that library. So there can be an argument for computers in the library. Also for research. But I don't think surfing for porn is an activity that society has an obligation to enable.
Example Output:
Sexual-explicit