Hell, identify one feminist who thinks that man in your hypothetical wasn't raped.
This ain't feminists disadvantaging men. It's the patriarchy harming everyone. Being "weaker"/female means you get raped more often. Being "stronger"/male means that when something painful and traumatic happens to you, nobody cares. See how everybody loses, and then you and I have to dispute whether this is a zero-sum game to begin with?
Anyway, your last question--most crimes, including rape, in most states, have an intent element. Most states also don't let you get wasted and say, "Hey, I was blind drunk, I didn't intend to rape zir!" They say, "You intended to get drunk. We charge you with the consequences." It's crude but effective, for example, in cases where a drunk driver kills a car full of teenagers.
I'm a lawyer but not your lawyer. Your state probably has weird rules and exceptions to this, just like every other state.
The "clearly established" standard is a way for courts to keep these kinds of suits from dinging innocent state employees. Basically, not only does the employee have to violate someone's right, but it has to have been pretty much unreasonable for the employee to think ze wasn't violating that right. Here, in fact, the panel didn't even hold that the kid had a right not to have this stuff said to him. So this case won't be precedent for future cases to reach back and say, "Well, as of the time the Corbett opinion was issued, the right not to have a teacher make fun of your religious beliefs was clearly established."
There are several other possible doctrines for protecting an employee in such a situation, and they're all salutary.
Once you're arrested, you can be searched sans warrant. Once you're arrested, your car can be impounded, and your entire vehicle can be "inventory" searched.
Your car can also be searched sans warrant based on probable cause of any criminal activity, even if you aren't arrested.
Better hope the courts decide your phone is more like a footlocker or a trunk, but good luck with that. The Supreme Court, over the course of about a dozen major Fourth Amendment decisions, has taken a dim view of your right to privacy while in your automobile.
I understand and buy into the rationale behind not letting jurors bring them in, but the state courts in the area almost universally allow lawyers to bring their smartphones in, and it's such a bonus.
Oh well, blame the feminists who never thought about the consequences of going to the police because of a condomless one night stand. You heartless bitches.
Is that what passes for "+5, Insightful" these days? Asking a woman who thinks she was raped not to come forward because of your politics is disgusting and terrifying. Your attitude exemplifies the reason that so many rapes go unreported. If she's not a liar or "regretting it the next morning," she's being politically insensitive.
Anyone who modded this Insightful should turn in their mod points or grow some humanity.
I'm serious. This is exactly what I want from Slashdot.