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 Q]: Comment: Just painful to read. Far too many unsubstantiated and seemingly concocted narratives that for me. simply do not ring true in the real world.

What bothers me most is the huge tendency to attribute personal characteristics to a gender. eg. Donald Trump is a pig. Harvey Weinstien is a pig. Therefore being a pig is a male characteristic. The implication is that, to varying degrees, it is in all of us.

I'm not buying in. I am responsible for my own actions. Harvey is responsible for his. I am not sharing responsibility for his actions just because I have a penis.
[EX A]: Sexual-explicit

[EX Q]: Comment: Except those priests who rape children. They weren't, and aren't, so much shepherds as wolves preying upon the flock, often with the support of the hierarchy. But, because they have been given magic powers by the bishop, and those magic powers cannot be removed, they remain priests of the Church even while committing vile acts condemned by all decent humans.
[EX A]: Sexual-explicit

[EX Q]: Comment: Your emoji notes that you disagree Catherine. Did it not happen? Or, was Jesus, the perfect, white quaterback handsome man pretend nailed to a ceramic model or a beaten, tortured middle eastern threat, rough nailed to the splintery remnants of a tree, in excruciating pain and rendered bloodless and with no heart-beat...dead...a cadaver to be removed and gotten rid of, except that a follower treated the dead man with respect? Is that not a chapter in our story? Or is your "faith" not able to handle the reality of Jesus incarnate in time.
[EX A]:
Non-sexual-explicit