What a guy Johnny Bravo was. The Cartoon Network character was the antithesis of the metrosexual buffoon and gave us some toe-curlingly awkward chat-up lines that not only made viewers laugh, but that also served as a warning on how not to talk to women! However, critics have taken a different viewpoint, believing the idiotic womanizer's influence wasn't good.
Just like the recent controversy surrounding The Simpsons and Friends, Bravo has come under fire for being offensive, sexist and of course, misogynistic.
It goes without saying that the comic creation is as gross and narcissistic as they come, and Bravo showcases this by routinely courting women the moment he sets his eyes on them. But is this criticism unwarranted?
In the episode, 'Witch-Ay Woman', Johnny's bad ways are attacked by a mystic who turns him into a female called Jenny, giving him an insight into the daily catcalls and uncomfortable moments a woman faces every day.
After waking up a 'chick', Bravo believes that by thinking 'chicks are for looking hot', he will have learned the error of his ways an be changed back, which was yet again a brilliant move by the writers to highlight the immature viewpoint some men have of women. As a result, he loses his male identity and stays female.
The whole episode then shows Jenny getting cat-called and chatted up by sleazebag guys- just like Bravo.
Unsurprisingly, the show's creator, Van Partible, staunchly defended his beloved character. Writing on his blog in the lead-up to the show's 20th anniversary, he wrote: "I've received wonderful letters from children all over the world expressing their love for the show and drawing cute pictures of Johnny.
"I had a man come tell me that Johnny Bravo was the only show he used to watch with his father because it was the only show that made his dad laugh. Another woman told me it was the favorite show of her autistic daughter who couldn't get enough of Johnny's voice (shout out to Jeff Bennett!)."
What are your thoughts on this matter? Are the critics barking up the wrong tree? Or do they have a point that Bravo set a bad example to malleable, impressionable boys, even if the writer had good intentions?
As always, be sure to leave your thoughts in the comment section below.