I don't see how the sight of someone’s shoes can be considered sexually arousing, but it does arouse some people, so, the action itself is not as pertinent as the result of it.
If Jacko gets off by shaking a kid’s hand, then, the definition fits.
According to 288(a), and your strange example, there's no correlation. The statute requires that lewd and lascivious act(s) must involve touching the child's body. In your other odd example of handshaking, do you actually believe a District Attorney would charge someone with handshaking and try to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the perp is being sexual aroused or gratified by shaking hands? DA's usually don't go to trial unless they believe they have a very good chance of winning a jury verdict. Of course, they're not always right about the strength of their case (the Bryant case in CO comes to mind), but if you're seriously suggesting that Jackson might be charged with something as benign as shaking a child's hand, there's not much to discuss.
If Jacko gets off by shaking a kid’s hand, then, the definition fits.
Could be. Then you can expect the testimony would include that the boy witnessed Jackson's arousal at such a mundane action and made sure the boy saw it. That's what would have to happen if you take your scenario and make it fit the charge.
If you are going to pretend that innocent shaking of hands or hugs would be enough to file charges, don't forget the arousal aspect. There will be testimony that goes beyond "he hugged me" or "shook my hand" and there will have to be the sexual aspect.
It will be there. No doubt about it.