This isn't how you evaluate whether something is criminal in the United States. Virtually all sexual assault (or sexual battery, depending on the jurisdiction) is prosecuted under state statutes. In many states, any coerced sexual touching done for the purposes of gratification constitutes sexual battery. If you search for cases, you will indeed find forced kisses on the mouth prosecuted.

Obviously, the physical coercion McClure used to trap this woman against a wall is, even without the sexual component, itself an assault

"Usually a sexual assault occurs when someone touches any part of another person's body in a sexual way, even through clothes, without that person's consent."

A forced kiss could definitely be interpreted in that way, especially after being told to get lost.

The involvement of 'sex organs' is optional.

Let's parse that statement that you quoted:

> Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient.

Lack of consent: check

Sexual contact or behavior: check

Note the 'any type'.

> Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape

Force: check

These are things that definitely fall under the term sexual assault, and a kiss goes quite a bit further than 'fondling', especially if it has already been indicated that such a kiss - and then there are kinds of kisses - is not welcome.

If I was on the defending side I'd hate to have to try to present the McClure case in a way that it might end up in this bracket, possibly that list is exhaustive and as long as the word 'kiss' isn't in the list you might get into 'sexual battery' but frankly I think that's just terminology, if the lady felt assaulted I don't fault her for picking the wrong narrow legal term and I suspect that in plenty of places the judge would see it in the same way.

If you're going to toss out legal language you might want to learn the difference between "battery" (contact happened) and "assault" (no contact required).

Thanks! I've made a note to dive deeper into the difference between the two, although I think the confusion might be more common:

"Historically, battery and assault were considered separate crimes, with battery requiring that the aggressor physically strike or offensively touch the victim. In that way, a battery was a “completed” assault. Many modern statutes don't bother to distinguish between the two crimes, as evidenced by the fact that the phrase "assault and battery" has become as common as "salt and pepper." These days, statutes often refer to crimes of actual physical violence as assaults.