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.
One example is below.
Q: Comment: President lied under oath about consensual sex...
Not the same thing as rape.
A: Sexual-explicit
Rationale: This comment explicitly mentions "consensual sex" and "rape", and thus is sexual-explicit.
Q: Comment: Any church (or other organization) that turns a blind eye to abuse is to be condemned and held accountable, including the Australian Catholic Church. What a disgraceful record.

But here is a comment that may not last long on the board with censor deletion, so read it while you still can.

There is an unusual habit of the Western media to lump all abuses by the Catholic church as pedophilia, as if the acts always involve an old priest and an infant or elementary school child, pedophilia being the attraction to pre-pubescent children.

But if you read the reports, including the Australian situation, the average age of male victims is around 12 years old.

That means a large portion of the victims are post-pubescent teenagers, meaning they are victims not of pedophilia but instead are victims of statutory gay rape.

The Western media doesn't go there, though, preferring to paint it all as pedophilia, when it isn't.

Both types of rape are wrong and appropriately illegal, obviously.
A:
Sexual-explicit