Maybe I used a bad scaling.
Your view is either a person controls their actions or someone else does.
My view takes into account things like influence, manipulation, the strength of will power, the strength of foreknowledge, intelligence and problem solving. Absolute control requires perfect knowledge, will, and freedom from consequence. One would have to be a deity to have absolute control over one's self. Humans are a bit different. One difference is that people have conscious and subconscious portions of their brain. We don't always know when we are being influenced in our decisions, so we can't always know that our decisions are actually ours. Thrown in the continual battle of the pre-frontal cortex vs our older, more animal brain, this analysis gets even more complex. Take into account the role of social pressures (which can be every bit as painful on a neurochemical levels as physical pressures, which means they levie the same level of influence on us as a species), relationships, etc and the picture is very muddy indeed.
The classical idea of human ownership, I think, relies very strongly on the power of the pre-frontal cortex (which holds our personality, will, and ego) to be the only part of the person that the philosophy deals with, it takes a much simpler view of the issue than I do, which takes into account more information about human nature learned since the 1700s.