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: I'd rip his balls off before he even knew about it. - this was removed, but it is a true fact.

Output: Sexual-explicit

Input: Consider Input: Comment: The alleged sexual assault of one of the three occupants was deleted from an earlier online version of this story published this morning. The sexual assault aspect to this case has been appearing and disappearing off and on from various sources in the last week. Why it's frequently deleted is anyone's guess. Either a victim made the allegation or not. It's really that simple.

Output: Sexual-explicit

Input: Consider Input: Comment: What about attacks against Jews? Sikhs? Don't those deserve mention also? This motion is emotional and poorly worded. By singling out one religious group for special mention, it defeats the purpose of non-discrimination that it's supposedly intended to serve.

While I can appreciate the emotions this MP Khalid must feel with the tragic crime in Quebec, this will only serve to cause the exact opposite of what she's looking for - it creates non-equality by elevating discrimination against one religious group above all others and will cause resentment at Muslims seeking to advance their causes above all others. A motion on equality and non-discrimination should reflect that in the very nature of it's wording. This one fails miserably and the motion being put forward by MP David Anderson - "all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination," should address Muslims equally with other religions and that should be what MP Khalid's goal is. That question is left hanging.
Output: Non-sexual-explicit