Bare flesh

[snowhite]

When someone has a wound and it's very deep. You see the flesg. Can we say "It's in bare flesh". Is that correct?

[5jj]

When someone has a wound and it's very deep. You see the flesg. Can we say "It's in bare flesh". Is that correct?

No. We often use 'flesh' to refer just to a person's skin.

[emsr2d2]

It's an odd situation with "flesh" when it comes to injuries. When we say "He just has a flesh wound" it means that the injury isn't very serious, it's perhaps just a scrape across the skin.

However, it is of course very serious when the skin is completely removed from an area of the body, exposing actual flesh (the tissue under the skin).

We're not very precise when we talk about these things in a non-medical way.

With your example, I think I would be quite explicit and say something like "He has a very deep wound. It's gone right through/down to the flesh."

As if to prove 5jj's point, in the UK you can buy "flesh-coloured tights/stockings". They are not the colour of flesh at all, they are the colour of skin.

[Raymott]

If this has anything to do with "en carne viva", we're still waiting for some context on other thread where half a dozen people are trying to help you. Otherwise, if it's unrelated, some more context here might help.

[SoothingDave]

"Bare flesh" to me has a connotation of titillation.