There could be a reason for that, but feel free to besmirch the person's integrity without grounds if you like.
And even if it looked real, even if it was Tom Savini real there’s still a massive difference between that and a depiction of graphic sex.
People in the neighborhood should not have to be subjected to either graphic sex or blood and gore in clear view in their neighbor's yard.
Obvious you can’t understand that a dude under a lawnmower has no relationship whatsoever to porn.
So you would obviously say that it was okay for a kid to view a movie full of blood and gore, but not a movie with sex in it. Gotcha.
And people wonder why kids are so screwed up these days.
I think it's mostly because of parents who have their butt cheeks clenched so tightly that if you stuck a lump of coal between them in a week they'd drop a diamond.
You know, like people who hate the way other people decorate their yards.
Didn’t besmirch anybody’s anything. Just pointed out they did not chose to render aid and had they they’d have quickly noticed it wasn’t a person.
There you go again with the silly equating of graphic sex and fake gore as equal creatures. Every time you do that you show your position is based on logical fallacy and bad ideas. It’s just red dye, no relationship at all to graphic sex. Come up with an argument that doesn’t equate the two.
Ever watched a Tom and Jerry cartoon? Blood and gore has been a part of kids’ entertainment for a long long time. Ain’t no “these days” about it.