It would be nice if we had a name for this whole pattern of learning and lying, because so far people have referred to it as "jackhammer type situation" or whatever, referring to other situations, which is harder to follow and catch up with than a consistent term.
I think it's always been her way of creating "content", except before we didn't see her watch movies etc betwen the lying videos. The livestreams give us the opportunity to see the whole lie fabrication process start to finish, and leave her less time to consume info that doesn't come from the chat. Any time she asks "what's that?" about a new term and seems amused, you can look forward to hearing the term in some new bullshit story.
Remember Chris Watts? Killed his whole family? If you watch his interrogation, he denies everything until someone suggests maybe he didn't actually kill the kids--his wife did and it made him angry so he killed her--and then that was the new story awhile later.
Casey Anthony is another case where she had a whole story line of not knowing what happened to her daughter until it was suggested maybe Kaylee drown in the pool. She mulled that over and then it became the actual reason how Kaylee died in her opening defense.
Dalia Dippilito. Her story of not knowing why someone wanted to kill her husband changed as the story changed. Once she realized her husband really wasn't dead, she came up with this whole plot of them filming a reality TV show. I don't recall if it was someone else's idea or her own, but whatever. Her story changed like bumper cars as evidence and suggestions moved around her.
There are just three big examples, but there are others. True crime junkies know what I'm talking about. It's an interrogation tactic to give them a plausible excuse (usually a dumb one with holes in it, but...) and then they run with it.
The more story line that is told by Chantal, the more I believe this to be true. I am going to go out on a LIMB and say there is a sliver of truth in there. There is an Egyptian man who is likely paying some tiny bit of attention to her, but it's not what she is saying AT ALL. That first night was likely nothing more than him entertaining the "fat girl" who wouldn't take his hints at leaving. He probably mentioned he wished he had a TV and she said OH I HAVE ONE because, you know, she wants him to like her. There was no rough sex, there was no coke -- it was lame and dull and Chantal knew it. Now she is forced to back-pedal all the crap she told us of that night.
He is more than likely an over-worked, chef-wanna be who is sweeping nails off newly-constructed floors who tried his hand at Tinder to find a lady. Chantal readily admits he isn't very cute. He has a hard time with the gals, but this time he caught an almost-live one. He is putting up with her because you know, maybe....but he isn't that much into her. She invites herself over and he tells her he's tired, but OK. He is friendly, but not really "into" her.
Now he's stuck with this lady's TV and is wondering how much further this is going to. He doesn't want to hurt her feelings, but YUCK. Her hair is gross and she smells. He's tired of unclogging the toilet every time she stops over.
I predict he'll call it off within the next week (bitch just can't take the hint) and Chantal will tell us he had to take an emergency trip back home for a sick family member because he's such an amazing person.
this man is allegedly living with an ex lover on his bedroom floor with a drawer of condoms, no bedframe, and an 8 ball. what kind of divinely fucked up pairing are we witnessing play out? irregardless of the exaggerations, white lies, or embellishing intertwined with her recollection of encounters, it will not end well, and a spur of epic proportions will begin. her cunty replies to the comment section is key indicator of a chimpout to follow soon 
