I don't think anyone is advocating against this interpretation.
The OP's question amounts to "is it possible to feed without killing?" That's what I was answering, since he seemed to be under the impression that feeding was fatal to the victim by default.
I would say that I do not see anything in the text of either feeding powers or feeding dependency itself that would lead me to this conclusion. Moreover, I highly suspect that a meaningful analysis would find this interpretation to quite thoroughly neuter any 'bite' that feeding dependency has, and thus its justification for providing a rebate.
Neither power says it explicitly, no. But both powers refer to the player "inflict[ing] enough stress and consequences to kill a victim from feeding." I.e., that feeding is done as an attack, which causes stress to the victim. Further, Emotional Vampire says,
This is done as a psychological attack with an appropriate skill (usually Deceit or Intimidation). If you have the Incite Emotion ability, inciting the emotion and feeding on it may be done as a single action, based on a single roll.
All of which points to the feeding powers being different forms of attack. An attack that causes stress, for a power that's meant, in part, to recover stress on your own track. I think it's a fairly logical step that stress caused by blood drinking or emotion eating attacks would recover stress from a feeding dependency for blood or emotions.
Point is, there has to be
something in between "recover one stress per scene out" and "kill the victim" styles of feeding. And since both forms of feeding are described as attacks that cause stress, it makes sense to me that the stress caused would correlate to the stress recovered.