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: Consider Input: Comment: Yeah, I'e been living with this issue for most of my life. I'm happy to keep it alive.

There's no question that men who make sexual overtures from a position of power commit an abuse of power. And yes, it's exactly these blurry lines that become problematic.

When I was quite young (I may even have been a minor) I had a boss who got sexual with me when we were alone in a room. I rebuffed him, and he was a gentleman about it. I was really annoyed, but I continued to work at that job for a while. Was it an abuse of power? Yes. Was it a crime? Actually, legally it may have been. But I don't think of it as a crime. Women used to experience this kind of stuff all the time. I'd like to think the culture has changed a bit since then.

Unfortunately, as you may remember, I have also been a rape victim. So I give women who claim they've been raped the benefit of the doubt. But...at times, it's not the truth.

Output: Sexual-explicit

Input: Consider Input: Comment: Why such a light sentence? 90 days is all a sicko gets for raping and drugging children?

Output: Sexual-explicit

Input: Consider Input: Comment: Look. This childish false equivalency and deflection is getting very tired. Yes, Wynne is just as deplorable as the average brain-dead Trump supporter. Trudeau II finds himself of his depth in a puddle. Are you happy now? Can we return to the actual topic that is being discussed in this thread now?

If the best you can do to support your dumpster fire of a Czar...errr...I mean "president" is malign Trudeau rather than present ANY evidence that is apropos of the matter at hand, then you are demonstrably unable to justify Dear Leader's embarrassing behaviour.
Output: Non-sexual-explicit