That's what the DOJ says. But the standards in the individual states, where these cases are certain to be prosecuted if at all, vary wildly. In some, the assault has to involve an intimate body part. In some, the contact has to be (ugh) "penetrative". In some, any form of coerced touching done for sexual arousal will qualify.

Also interpretations of "coerced," "unwanted," "consent," etc vary, so even when standards appear similar their applied meanings may differ.

Just to state the obvious though, behavior that is legal can be nonetheless morally deplorable. Not saying that's inconsistent what with anyone in this thread is saying (I can't see what crispytx wrote). But some HN comments over the past few days seem to view the putative wrongs in exclusively legal terms, as if legality is dispositive of morality.

Did you mean to say correct? That description and those examples are very different from the story I read.

I was responding to "Sexual assault is when someone has sex with another person without their permission" which is incorrect in that it too narrowly defines sexual assault.

Replace "sex" with "sexual act" and you've got it almost word for word. I suppose you could say there's a difference there, though one just seems like a shorthand for the other.