Categorize the comment on the basis of sexual explicitness. If the comment is sexually explicit output Yes, otherwise output No.

Ex Input:
He makes $200,000 a year working for Conoco-Phillips so we already know who he represents in the legislature. Plenty of men have earned sexual favors for buying a dinner costing a lot less than $100 bucks. So let's not argue about the power of paying for a nice dinner.

Ex Output:
Yes

Ex Input:
I would hope at least a few residents would visit Colorado, Oregon and Washington. Except for the signs for the pot businesses you would never know sales and use are going on. As for revenues these states all release quarterly tax figures and the sums are nothing to sneeze at. I was an RN for many years and can assure you that alcohol and tobacco are the leading causes of medical problems and hospitalization and death. All of you older than 21 know that too.

Ex Output:
No

Ex Input:
There are two types of inclusionary zoning i.e. Market Rate Inclusionary Housing and Means Tested Inclusionary Housing.

Market Rate Inclusionary Housing is built to be affordable to a specific economic constituency. However, it may be rented by anyone with the ability to pay.

Means Tested Inclusionary Housing is built to be affordable to a specific economic constituency. However, only a range of buyers within a restricted MFI are eligible to participate. Only those at the top of that MFI range will find the property affordable. This class of housing is similar to Public Housing and in some cases may actually be Public Housing.

The question perpetually arises with inclusionary zoning, Public Housing and other attempts at Affordable Housing, which is never answered: For WHOM are these units being built and what statistical data has been used to determine the need by neighborhood?

Ex Output:
No