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: Rules about sex, formulated by the celibate, based on dubious interpretations of scripture (which says NOTHING about oral sex, for example) and grounded in the silly opinion that sexual activity has to be "justified" by saying it must be for procreation (a view that owes more to the Gnostics, the Neoplatonists and the Roman Stoics than scripture) are less than compelling.
Example Output: Sexual-explicit

Example Input: Comment: A man who stands up, will not be walked upon.

China is out of control. Put them in their place.
Example Output: Non-sexual-explicit

Example Input: Comment: Columbus was on a gold finding mission and he made sure to get funding and approval from the Spanish King and Queen before embarking.

"Finding" gold requires labour and Columbus soon enslaved, beat, destroyed families, forced conversion to Christianity and simply stole the goods from the Indians he "found" on his gold fishing lands.

All with the approval of the Catholic Pope.

There is in history, little to recommend Columbus.
Except as lies told by those who benefited from Columbus and the ongoing myth of his greatness.

(Hey reviewers - you may not like this post but it is history and it is not uncivil. Play fair.)
Example Output:
Non-sexual-explicit