"It's whether the acts occurred . . . that's the only focus in this case."
She said much of the alleged offending happened behind the guise of massages.
When interviewed in 2014, the girls described feeling "weird, uncomfortable, scared and nervous" about the alleged molestation.
"The touching was sneaky, it was brief, but it was undoubtedly sexual," Ms McClintock said.
"What started as a seemingly innocent form of touching became something else, something sexual; something our law calls an indecent act."
But defence lawyer Arthur Fairley said the allegations were absolutely rejected by his client
"Whatever facts [the Crown] want to advance . . . it is totally denied," he said.
He urged the jurors to look for inconsistencies and accounts of witnesses, that may have changed over the course of time.
The allegations emerged in 2014 when one of the girls told her father, who eventually informed police.
Mr Fairley directed the jury to pay attention to that element, as well as the alleged timeline forwarded by the Crown, which he said would "give the game away".
"Anyone can say whatever they like in this courtroom," he said. "You have to gauge the words of the person talking to you."
Ms McClintock said much of the offending came during massages but the defendant also pressed himself up against one girl from behind.
She told police she could feel his penis against her and felt like he was going to kiss her.
Ms McClintock told the jury the main issue for the jury was simply going to be whether they believed the complainants.
"Do you ultimately believe them to be honest and accurate witnesses," she said.
Both girls will give evidence by audio-visual link tomorrow.
The case continues.