Is it normal to not have a signature?

Your "signature" can be a stick figure sheep if you want. In most jurisdictions it's the demonstrated intent to agree, as evidenced by your sheep on the signature line. But, the other party doesn't have to accept it. For instance, a bank might look at your sheep and say they require a name signature or else they won't sign. Unique and hard to replicate signatures used to be equivalent of a good password, but signatures aren't so important these days. I'm guessing your passwords are all "password". Heheh

if yall deal with situations where someone could forge yalls signature for nefarious purposes then it could be a problem

if yall dont deal with contracts & big sumsa money then it prolly aint gonna come up

anythin important enough is gonna needta git notarized anyhow

Signatures are much less important these days than they used to be, but they aren't yet completely outmoded, particularly when it comes to contracts.

If you don't have a fixed signature, it would be difficult for you to convincingly deny that you signed something and use discrepancies in the signature as evidence it was forged and therefore you aren't bound by the terms of the contract.

You just scribble your name. Any time im signing anything I usually have DTs anyway so its not really hard.

Signatures are important. A signature is there to give you a way to prove or deny you signed something like a contract. You don't need to sign your full name. A lot of people will use initials. A signature in a legal sense is any mark or sign made by someone to signify knowledge, approval, acceptance, or obligation. It technically could be anything.

I think it's only important for validation purposes, in the rare case that the authenticity of a contract or legally binding document or cheque you have signed is questionable.

My signature has variations as well, not too great though, and this is usually because I'm in a hurry at certain times.

If you don't mind me asking, how old are you?