It's different in a strip club - and varies by state and town. Essentially, they're supposed to keep the sexual stuff entirely theoretical and there should be no contact with the body's erogenous zones (with or without clothing or other items as a barrier or intermediary).

Stripper brushes a leg against a patron's crotch... that's a violation. Stripper 'allows' a patron to brush against her groin area or breasts... that's a violation. In the latter case, there should be some allowance for whether or not the stripper reacts negatively to the contact, but given that in this case it appears to be a politically attack, I wouldn't bet on it. (Which is also a really bad way to write a law, since a stripper is on the wrong end of the economic transaction to react too strongly... the charges for patron-to-stripper contact should apply against the patron)

The no-contact laws appear to be written by religious nuts who believe women are evil temptresses and it's all their fault.