Why is it supposed to be better to not show any blood on a wrestling show?  The answer the WWE gives is it's because children are watching.  Unlike The Attitude Era, they are no longer aiming their product at a grown up audience.  They are making a product for younger viewers now.
 
So, why is it that they can show a fairly violent segment like the ending of this week's RAW and that's alright because it didn't have blood?  If I were a parent I would want my children to learn that if you physically assault someone, they will likely get injured, and very possibly bleed.  I wouldn't want my kids trying out things they saw on WWE on the playground that ends up giving another kid a nasty cut requiring stitches and then saying "I didn't know it would happen!  Nobody bleeds when they do it on TV!"
 
I think it's irresponsible for WWE to not show that there are physical consequences to fighting.  Every time kids watch a wrestling match and both wrestlers leave without so much as a scratch, think of the message that is sending to children.  You can punch and kick people, hit them with chairs and other objects and it doesn't make anybody bleed.  Everyone leaves the ring without a scratch.
 
If WWE really wants to market its product to children, then it's irresponsible of them to never show anybody bleed in a wrestling match.  I'm not saying that every single match needs to have blood, but at least some of the time they should show that people can get cut and bleed if you try to do the things to them that they see on WWE TV.  Showing blood as a consequence of violence is the responsible thing to do when they market their product to children.  Showing wrestlers endure what appear to be terrible beatings without ever bleeding as a consequence is sending a dangerously misleading message to children.
 
Personally I don't think that a wrestling - a TV program that depicts people as always choosing violence as the method to settle their disputes is appropriate for children.  I've never heard a decent explanation as to why our society is so lenient towards allowing children to see violence and is so strict about censoring nudity on TV and giving movies that merely show bare female breasts an "R" rating.  Meanwhile, movies that show a surprising amount of violence are given "PG" ratings or "PG-13" ratings as long as no bare breasts are shown.  Why is it that our society considers showing the form of a beautiful female body more offensive and more dangerous to our children's well being than showing people hurting and killing each other?