This is really stating the obvious, but our dear Knight of the Cart is (what a coincidence!) the epitome of our chaste girly-knight. He lies with the damsel strictly out of a sense of duty, suffering internally all the while. This virtuous knight is not only obeying our rules on love, but also obeying the theory put forth in a prior reading that this courtly literature relies heavily on unrequited love to suit its purposes: the knight grudgingly lies with this damsel out of a sense of duty, despite the fact that his heart belongs to another.
It would seem then, that this particular work is placing duty above even love, and perhaps this also follows the idea of literature of this tradition actually serving as a critique of love for anything other than one’s God. During this time period especially, one’s God goes hand-in-hand with one’s duty. It is because of duty alone that the knight is persuaded to sleep with the damsel, preferring however to keep himself chaste, to avoid betrayal of his beloved, and to honor his God, all on varying levels.
Of course it doesn’t hurt that the damsel turns out to be the ultimate nagging “I-was-just-testing-you” psycho. All else pales in comparison to the knight’s true love, especially this nutjob. As difficult as it is to be painfully irritating within such simple sentence structure, the damsel manages; the only acceptable acts she performs are offering to leave the knight’s bed and offering to return home.
That said, I’ve only read the first chunk so far, so if I’m missing something huge that’s relevant to all of this, you know why.