It's a contract that is entirely consensual for both parties, I don't see why it should upset anyone.
I don't know if it's that simple. Some contracts can be offensive in nature. If PETA said that they would pay the water bill for anyone that would give a handjob, then it would entirely consensual for both parties, but very upsetting. Not that this is that upsetting. Still, I think PETA are pretty effective at getting a rise out of people for PR. It's tough to find someone that doesn't know who PETA is. I suspect that is their main motivation, which is a bit offensive to me, but not terribly so.
Whaaatttt? Why is giving HJ's for an economic benefit offensive? If I had to get my water bill paid and my only two options were hand jobs or veganism I'd go with the HJ. It'd be over quicker and would disrupt my life less. If PETA controlled the water supply and said that the only way to get water was to stop eating meat or give HJ's than the whole thing would be creepy and corrosive, as it stands it just provides another option for obtaining an essential service that some people might find preferable to either going without water or spending money that they might use more happily on some other thing.
I understand the argument but I disagree. There's a correlating argument about the morality of prostitution. I just don't see any reason to be upset if my beginning state is "no water" and my ending state is "no water but with an option to get water which I under no circumstances have to acknowledge."I don't know if it's that simple. Some contracts can be offensive in nature. If PETA said that they would pay the water bill for anyone that would give a handjob, then it would entirely consensual for both parties, but very upsetting.