In a message dated 98-02-16 08:25:47 EST, Kathy Dettwyler wrote:

<< My research (and I'm the ONLY person, so far, who has done research on this
 topic) indicates that the "natural" age of weaning for humans ranges between
 2.5 years as the absolute minimum, and 7 years as the maximum, with many of
 the indicators falling at the 6-7 year end of the range. >>

I don't mean to harp on this, but I would respectfully suggest that if the
normal "natural" age of weaning for humans is between 2 and 7 years of age, (
and having read Kathy's research , I believe that it is) then we do a
disservice to mothers and babies by referring to the mother/baby nursing
relationship that continues to this point  as "extended" breastfeeding. This
is "normal", "natural" and "not premature weaning" - no one has extended
anything. They have simply not weaned prematurely. When the term "extended "
is used by those of us in this work, we unintentionally make it sound as if
the relationship could easily be dispensed with,
except that for some selfish, or lazy reasons, we had not "extended" it
abnormally.
When we say "extended" BF we sound as if we believe mom and baby are past the
point of nursing having physiological, physical, emotional, cognitive, etc.
benefits. As, Diane Wiessinger has said in the past in her "language is power"
essay for JHL, this is one powerful but subtle way that we can help normalize
the nursing of toddlers, and toddlers+, by simply referring to those children
who were NOT nursing this long as "premature weaners" instead of talking about
toddlers who are nursing as being part of "extended breastfeeding". Just my
.02.
Judy LeVan Fram,  the LC whose name Rob forgot, :-)
PS That same horrid ad for Parent's Choice AIM is in Parenting 's March 98
issue, the one with the awful article on "Sleep Problems" by Dr Spock...