That depends on how poor they are, and what gender they are. But this is all way off the original topic, which by the way, was posted a year old.
I doubt that it is too far off topic. Have you ever heard of Thorston Veblin. He was an oddball sort of economist, andone of his books was The Theory of the Leisure Class. One of the things he pointed out was the difference between a poor person at their meal compared to the rich at theirs. The poor person surrounds his food with his arms, knife in one hand and fork in the other, while the rich use their table manors as an expression of aesthetics, because whether they will eat or not, or whether they need more food or not, is not at issue. When sex can be turned into an article of commerce it is because a person's need for it for reproduction have been met. Who cares then if the better part of you being hits the trash? What sex is to one when upon sex procreation depends, and what it is to another whose needs are assured may be totally different. If for the first, pleasure and intimacy bond two people to the death as if by contract, for the second the interest is rather to debased the whole issue, to rob meaning out of sex with a price. Now, how does one put a price on the priceless without hurting its value?