This has been discussed before (indeed multiple times before). What eyecue is standing behind is that some sort of intent for sexual gratification is a required element of most sex crimes. Although that's true, I pointed out a while ago that there are numerous examples of people being prosecuted for sex crimes (mostly involving being nude) that have similar intent requirements where there's no evidence of intent present. Because intent is basically in somebody's head, it can't be proven either way and is often assumed.

On the other hand, it is certainly true that the precise definition of sexual assault and/or sexual battery very much differ from state to state and are quite often not what you think they are. If you're going this route, it's critical to know the exact statute and how the terms in it have been interpreted by case law.

But if every element of the crime other than intent is met, I certainly think it reasonable to press charges.